tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33602703656852294072024-02-19T17:36:47.201+01:00Rational IdealistComments on current events and underlying trends in international and Romanian politicsRational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.comBlogger247125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-48810442140977234692021-07-05T10:28:00.003+02:002021-07-05T14:15:43.292+02:00On covid-19, the recklessness of UK's politicians poses a continued threat to Europe (EN)<p>Notwithstanding its successful vaccination campaign (which has been often put in contrast to EU's comparatively sluggish record), the United Kingdom is currently suffering <a href="https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1410529154978701319" target="_blank">another wave</a> of the coronavirus pandemic, driven by the very contagious 'delta' (a.k.a. 'Indian') variant.</p><p>How this came to be is well known, and clearly <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-india-variant-coronavirus-b1848086.html" target="_blank">linked to political decisions</a> made by the UK Government. But the consequences could be very dire for continental Europe.</p><p>Indeed (see map below), the countries in the EU currently most affected by the new surge in cases are exactly those who recently welcomed UK tourists with few restrictions or none at all: Portugal and Spain. From there, as recent history demonstrates, it's only a matter of time before the fresh pandemic wave sweeps across the continent.</p><p>After last spring's third wave of covid-19 in Europe was driven by the 'alpha' variant of the virus that originated in England, it's now the second time in half a year that the UK is the gateway for a pandemic wave affecting the continent. The main explanation for this recurrent hazard is the continued recklessness in managing this health crisis by the British authorities.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Jt9koGA4IBlIMQUZfc31Ss9uPfiJprBTLEbWJIPbEqj49REsgoh5Ap41p9x_9MXDrkcLxJBMArXxpNRzS2rg_ec50Bmy3c2QGglpwTcpj0i6EdVHXH8BVodhFRUnVfxwkN1PV8-Pl84/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="756" data-original-width="1377" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Jt9koGA4IBlIMQUZfc31Ss9uPfiJprBTLEbWJIPbEqj49REsgoh5Ap41p9x_9MXDrkcLxJBMArXxpNRzS2rg_ec50Bmy3c2QGglpwTcpj0i6EdVHXH8BVodhFRUnVfxwkN1PV8-Pl84/w400-h220/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><div>And nor is it set to end.<p></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a>In spite of the exponential rise in cases and the warnings from health experts, the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9756427/Boris-defies-scientists-fury-unveil-Freedom-Day-blueprint-TODAY.html" target="_blank">Prime Minister</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732783/SAGE-scientist-breaks-ranks-slams-Sajid-Javids-frightening-plans-scrap-lockdown.html" target="_blank">new Health Secretary</a> are determined to lift on 19 July all the remaining measures designed to slow down the propagation of the virus. The political pressure to go ahead with 'freedom day' is enormous, not least because the government has lost credibility in enforcing restrictions after senior political figures were seen flouting lockdown and social distancing rules. But doing so creates serious risks of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/04/uk-scientists-caution-that-lifting-of-covid-rules-is-like-building-variant-factories" target="_blank">accelerating the emergence of new dangerous variants</a> of the virus.<p></p><p>The number of covid-19 deaths in recent weeks has remained low in the UK, as apparently the vaccines are effective at reducing the severity of the disease, if not completely its propagation. The future, however, remains uncertain, and the policies pursued by the UK are magnifying the risks - e.g. of more aggressive variants that escape vaccines. </p><p>For the EU, however, things look more certain. With comparatively lower vaccination rates (even if catching up lately), it is set to face more severe cases and deaths in the coming period, as the 'delta' variant takes over.</p><p>To be sure, the UK will suffer itself a non-negligible impact from the new wave of the pandemic; and Spain and Portugal only have themselves to blame for opening too wide and hastily to British tourists.</p><p>Still, as with the previous wave, we face a recurrent state of affairs where the UK's botched response to the pandemic creates an ominous situation for the entire continent.</p></div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-24531970034574030452021-05-23T10:17:00.006+02:002021-05-23T10:27:03.565+02:00The distance between what the UK thinks of itself and how others judge it (EN)<p>Here is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/may/22/eurovision-song-contest-26-nations-compete-final-james-newman" target="_blank">UK's anticipation</a> before last night's Eurovision song contest:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinFTQvWFUVVwyF-HDr-efCOJEcxZEwNoa8OZK1OxlR-EHE3QBL_Pp66zGs2Kj_wDbuzPBCMTQ94FLp1VjZ769uAahRpraSCDPoSTdARCD6TxK-sD5M0-xLOc-NiJ7LJDbc4KYVg8RXe9w/s750/Eurovision2021_UKanticipation.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="642" data-original-width="750" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinFTQvWFUVVwyF-HDr-efCOJEcxZEwNoa8OZK1OxlR-EHE3QBL_Pp66zGs2Kj_wDbuzPBCMTQ94FLp1VjZ769uAahRpraSCDPoSTdARCD6TxK-sD5M0-xLOc-NiJ7LJDbc4KYVg8RXe9w/s320/Eurovision2021_UKanticipation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And here are the final results:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZSMVJN2g0_SijZDP-Cxprmd4DayxJK_vied3VpeLXF6G-z4mr2V_SZemoxxYIMmscoQbAZv11I0rwuNDJHCrZiA3oc5ZprlYhqtIhLZ5Y_02hP0WtZ0mQcS1tPT0lS9zkYkeasAiHloE/s1610/Eurovision2021_final_results.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1610" data-original-width="730" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZSMVJN2g0_SijZDP-Cxprmd4DayxJK_vied3VpeLXF6G-z4mr2V_SZemoxxYIMmscoQbAZv11I0rwuNDJHCrZiA3oc5ZprlYhqtIhLZ5Y_02hP0WtZ0mQcS1tPT0lS9zkYkeasAiHloE/w290-h640/Eurovision2021_final_results.jpg" width="290" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So the competitor from the UK was hoping to win... and he came out last with nil (zero!) points.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's not easy at all to score a clean zero points in an Eurovision contest. Still, the UK has managed this feat twice, and it's the fifth time it has come last.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Sure, you can consider Eurovision - as I do - a largely pointless jamboree with little relation to the quality of the music. Still, as the ranking of each competitor is determined in good part based on voting by the public from the other countries, such extreme results are not irrelevant. And the point I'm making here is not about Eurovision, but about the UK.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>I have often admired and envied the capacity of some peoples / countries to think very high of themselves. It's usually helpful and can be put to very positive uses. The 'can do' / 'nothing is impossible' / 'we are the best' attitude has helped achieve great things in history. Lack of self-confidence and assertiveness, on the other hand, is persistently plaguing some countries' capacity to reach their potential.<p></p><p>But, occasionally, the gap between the self-perception and how others see you grows so wide that cheerful self-confidence turns into delusion and a reckoning becomes unavoidable. </p><p>One can wonder whether this Eurovision example isn't a metaphor for other consequential events in recent British history.<br /></p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-52509248811199227012021-05-07T11:35:00.006+02:002021-05-07T14:48:08.510+02:00Presedintele Iohannis spune ca Romania sta "extrem de bine" cu vaccinarea anti-covid, dar realitatea este alta (RO)<p> <a href="https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/iohannis-si-citu-viziteaza-joi-centrul-de-vaccinare-anti-covid-de-la-spitalul-militar-din-constanta.html" target="_blank">Anuntul triumfalist de ieri al presedintelui Iohannis</a> cum ca, spre deosebire de multe alte tari, Romania sta "extrem de bine" in privinta campaniei de vaccinare anti-covid este inselator.</p><p>Exista un singur aspect la care Romania este acum intr-o situatie mai buna decat alte tari europene, si anume faptul ca a obtine un vaccin a ajuns sa fie mult mai usor: nu mai exista conditii de varsta sau de comorbiditate, nu mai este nevoie de programare prin sistemul centralizat, pur si simplu oamenii se pot prezenta spontan la centrele de vaccinare deschise, exista destule doze de vaccin pentru toti.</p><p>Fara indoiala, acesta este un lucru foarte important din punctul de vedere al individului care isi doreste vaccinul. In tarile occidentale, programarile sunt inca restrictionate pe categorii de varsta, de exemplu tinerii fara anumite comorbiditati mai au de asteptat, posibil chiar luni intregi.</p><p>In schimb, din punctul de vedere al situatiei vaccinarii si al obiectivelor ei asumate (atingerea unei imunitati colective a populatiei si prevenirea sau atenuarea semnificativa a viitoarelor valuri ale pandemiei), Romania sta foarte prost comparativ cu alte tari europene. Iar succesul relativ in disponibilitatea vaccinurilor pentru cei doritori mascheaza de fapt o mare problema, care este pe cale sa duca la esecul campaniei de vaccinare.</p><p>Pentru a lamuri situatia, este suficient sa privim indicatorii-cheie ai progresului vaccinarii in tarile Uniunii Europene.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>Primul indicator al progresului vaccinarii este numarul dozelor de vaccin administrate, raportat la populatie.</p><p>La acest indicator, Romania a ramas mult in urma mediei UE, acumuland in ultima luna si jumatate o intarziere de 10-12 zile, care continua sa creasca. Iar comparatia cu multe dintre tarile occidentale (am inclus Germania in graficul de mai jos ca exemplu) este si mai nefavorabila. Explicatia este ca, incepand cu ultima parte a lunii martie, vaccinarea a accelerat puternic in UE, dar nu si in Romania - sau mult mai putin. Dupa 20 martie, Romania a ramas din ce in ce mai mult in urma "plutonului".</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKFspJ_3hNpFtW3pjvIzAuE_Jag3UkHN9ZzugEiOW4VdwZOtNYgurUCgHfVgiJgqYRvD_MCmOIQpr98NOekAYgA7GT9odOBQpx2Te2HOG1jPTMp1zLlNriPCku1Ya2NS2tNZZfjWDrJQw/s1378/Untitled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="1378" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKFspJ_3hNpFtW3pjvIzAuE_Jag3UkHN9ZzugEiOW4VdwZOtNYgurUCgHfVgiJgqYRvD_MCmOIQpr98NOekAYgA7GT9odOBQpx2Te2HOG1jPTMp1zLlNriPCku1Ya2NS2tNZZfjWDrJQw/s320/Untitled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Motivul pentru care Romania a administrat mai putine doze de vaccin nu are legatura cu penuria de vaccinuri suferita de Europa la inceputul primaverii. Prin sistemul de achizitie comun al UE, Romania a primit un numar de doze de vaccin corespunzator populatiei sale. Pana acum, au intrat in tara aproape 9 milioane de doze, dar pana ieri fusesera administrate mai putin de 6 milioane.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Un alt indicator important este cel al proportiei din populatie care a primit macar o doza de vaccin. Speranta de a putea ridica in siguranta restrictiile de circulatie si contact intre oameni este in directa legatura cu proportia celor imunizati macar cu o doza de vaccin (se stie deja ca o singura doza asigura un nivel bun de imunizare).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Aici, Romania sta chiar mai prost, acumuland din martie incoace o intarziere de trei saptamani fata de media europeana, intarziere care continua sa creasca.</div><div><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp3w3w4-IP4KhvYpvPCmcEOUxLFGgzSDMqbpcaFLvBLe_cjCt1EF21Zvyk_CSifEhYeJJ2bizP6_pGDUo3WUJVYzA6apWcxBa8GDIS5wzNDMSUMeSLkal8ueFOKeAChfzZIxH3voeZvBU/s1378/Untitled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="702" data-original-width="1378" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp3w3w4-IP4KhvYpvPCmcEOUxLFGgzSDMqbpcaFLvBLe_cjCt1EF21Zvyk_CSifEhYeJJ2bizP6_pGDUo3WUJVYzA6apWcxBa8GDIS5wzNDMSUMeSLkal8ueFOKeAChfzZIxH3voeZvBU/s320/Untitled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Am explicat in <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/04/este-romania-prea-rigida-in.html">postarea precedenta</a> motivul diferentei dintre acesti doi indicatori si de ce nici aceasta diferenta nu este o veste buna pentru Romania, nu voi mai repeta (pe scurt: Romania, spre deosebire de alte tari, prioritizeaza administrarea celei de-a doua doze). Indicatorul proportiei de persoane complet vaccinate este singurul la care Romania are un mic avans (in jur de 5 zile) fata de media UE.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cum se explica, totusi, ca desi a administrat mai putine doze de vaccin si a vaccinat mai putini oameni relativ la populatie, Romania ofera acum vaccinuri la discretie tuturor doritorilor, fara programare sau restrictii de varsta, in timp ce alte tari sunt inca la stadiul vaccinarii celor peste 50 de ani sau cu anumite comorbiditati?</div><div><br /></div><div>Motivul este foarte simplu, dar si foarte ingrijorator: pentru ca romanii par a fi dispusi sa se vaccineze in proportie seminificativ mai mica decat media europeana. Din grupurile prioritare de risc (varstnici, cei cu comorbiditati), Romania a vaccinat o proportie mult mai mica decat alte tari europene. Asa se face ca este in situatia de a vaccina acum pe oricine doreste si are inca 3 milioane de doze disponibile (iar in perioada urmatoarevor fi livrate si mai multe).</div><div><br /></div><div>Pentru cei dornici sa se vaccineze, dar care nu se incadreaza in grupurile prioritare de risc, Romania este tara ideala, cu vaccinuri "la liber".</div><div>Dar din punctul de vedere al campaniei de vaccinare, tara se indreapta din pacate spre un esec, riscand sa ramana cu multe milioane de doze nefolosite si multe milioane de oameni nevaccinati.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tara este deci departe de a sta "extraordinar de bine" in privinta vaccinarii anti-covid. Dimpotriva, este pe cale sa ramana la coada Europei (impreuna cu Bulgaria, Croatia, Letonia) si sa plateasca pretul acestui esec cand va fi lovita de urmatorul val al pandemiei.</div><div><br /></div><div>Autoritatile ar trebui sa lase anunturile triumfaliste (asta e valabil atat pentru presedinte, cat si <a href="https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-coronavirus-24783873-florin-citu-rock-romania-azi-depasim-3-5-milioane-persoane-vaccinate.htm" target="_blank">pentru premierul Citu</a> - cine il asculta ar putea crede ca Romania e campioana vaccinarii) si sa-si canalizeze eforturile de urgenta spre convingerea populatiei sa se vaccineze si spre accelerarea semnificativa a vitezei de vaccinare, in pas cu restul UE, fata de care a ramas serios in urma in ultima luna si jumatate.</div><div><br /></div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-7646928314373394632021-04-12T18:27:00.001+02:002021-04-12T18:27:04.041+02:00Este Romania prea rigida in administrarea dozei a doua de vaccin anti-covid? Statistici, explicatii, interpretari... (RO)<p>Romania a inceput relativ bine campania de vaccinare anti-covid, fiind de-a lungul lunii feburarie printre primele tari din UE ca numar de doze de vaccin administrate la suta de locuitori. Dar la sfarsitul lunii februarie a franat brusc ritmul vaccinarii, fiind ajunsa din urma de media UE. A mers apoi in pas cu media UE pana in ultima saptamana a lunii martie, cand Romania a inceput sa ramana tot mai mult in urma mediei la dozele administrate - nu ca ar fi incetinit, ci pentru ca celelalte tari au accelerat semnificativ, in timp ce tara noastra a ramas intr-o viteza 'de croaziera' de cca. 55.000 de doze de vaccin administrate zilnic (spre comparatie, Franta, care a inceput mult mai incet in ianuarie, a ajuns recent la <a href="https://www.efe.com/efe/english/world/france-sets-single-day-vaccination-record-at-510-000/50000262-4508661" target="_blank">peste 500.000 de doze pe zi</a>, cu o populatie doar de 3 ori si jumatate mai mare decat a Romaniei).</p><p>Graficul de mai jos al numarului de doze de vaccin administrate la suta de locuitori ilustreaza aceasta evolutie in trei acte: Romania deasupra mediei UE in februarie, in pas cu media UE in martie, si ramanand din ce in ce mai mult in urma de atunci.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7q6dcPH-w3xq1pBlj_mgkcWjbOu7MjkRhcIlyFzvesnBsQk8MVBHXX4e4hCkqgmDBV7a9nRTw1tFkKdDDYMxhJIgTknr8Tucdqft4ytWIjGhpoeYyr1o8iJvJl2LSYF2vNJkppEfpg_o/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="796" data-original-width="888" height="359" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7q6dcPH-w3xq1pBlj_mgkcWjbOu7MjkRhcIlyFzvesnBsQk8MVBHXX4e4hCkqgmDBV7a9nRTw1tFkKdDDYMxhJIgTknr8Tucdqft4ytWIjGhpoeYyr1o8iJvJl2LSYF2vNJkppEfpg_o/w400-h359/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Aceasta ramanere in urma nu este deocamdata dramatica. Chiar daca Romania este acum printre tarile din UE cele mai intarziate cu vaccinarea, inca nu a pierdut contactul cu plutonul si mai poate recupera daca accelereaza campania de vaccinare in perioada urmatoare, mai ales ca in tara au intrat pana acum doze destule (cu peste 2 milioane mai multe decat numarul dozelor deja administrate). Penuria de vaccinuri, care s-a manifestat acut in februarie, nu mai este acum o problema - exista doze suficiente pentru a accelera semnificativ vaccinarea.</p><p>Dar exista o diferenta in campania de vaccinare din Romania fata de alte tari UE care merita discutata, pentru ca ar putea avea implicatii importante in depasirea mai rapida, sau dimpotriva, agravarea si prelungirea actualului val al pandemiei. </p><p>Diferenta dintre Romania si 'mainstream-ul' european este ilustrata de faptul ca, desi se afla sub media UE la numarul de doze administrate (raportat la populatie), Romania este totusi sensibil peste media UE la proportia celor complet vaccinati (care au primit ambele doze de vaccin):</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoc2AMWg2w2im_KAUlx38LOIGMNu071At16ol7gSD2Y0RjwjCoL9NwzZrZT66BUlooB7Cqq53J04kWUxt04bcbu4Rsm2tgH2bsDjFhj6g0lWRHYwmNAowEEmc90XE_JOVkMy8h1V9G-so/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="767" data-original-width="843" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoc2AMWg2w2im_KAUlx38LOIGMNu071At16ol7gSD2Y0RjwjCoL9NwzZrZT66BUlooB7Cqq53J04kWUxt04bcbu4Rsm2tgH2bsDjFhj6g0lWRHYwmNAowEEmc90XE_JOVkMy8h1V9G-so/w400-h364/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Cu alte cuvinte, Romania a administrat mai putine doze de vaccin la suta de locuitori, dar are mai multi complet vaccinati (adica a administrat a doua doza in proportie mai mare decat media UE).</p><p>Care este explicatia acestui aparent paradox si ce inseamna acest lucru?</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>Explicatia consta in intervalul dintre administrarea primei doze de vaccin si a celei de-a doua.</p><p>Pe scurt, Romania a aplicat strict protocolul de vaccinare recomandat de firmele producatoare, in timp ce alte tari au prelungit intervalul dintre cele doua doze.</p><p>Se stie ca Marea Britanie, care si-a inceput campania de vaccinare in ritm sustinut chiar in timpul celui de-al treilea val pandemic, a optat de la inceput si explicit pentru a da o prima doza de vaccin cat mai multor oameni, cat mai repede, chiar cu pretul amanarii celei de-a doua doze. Rezultatele ulterioare au dat dreptate abordarii britanice: s-a constatat ca o prima doza de vaccin produce deja un grad semnificativ de protectie si chiar ca, cel putin in cazul vacccinului AstraZeneca, prelungirea intervalului dintre doze creste eficacitatea. Astazi, Marea Britanie a depasit valul pandemic si ridica treptat masurile de carantina.</p><p>Se stie insa mai putin ca si alte tari europene au decis sa mareasca intervalul dintre cele doua doze de vaccin. Belgia, de exemplu, a decis inca din martie <a href="https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_vaccination-les-deux-doses-pfizer-peuvent-desormais-etre-espacees-de-35-jours?id=10716009" target="_blank">sa mareasca intervalul intre doze pentru vaccinul Pfizer la 35 de zile</a> (fata de cele 21 prescrise), iar pentru vaccinul AstraZeneca a stabilit un interval intre doze de 12 saptamani (la limita superioara a <a href="https://vaccinare-covid.gov.ro/informare-privind-administrarea-vaccinului-astrazeneca/">intervalului recomandat, de 4-12 saptamani</a>). In ce priveste vaccinul Pfizer, <a href="https://sante.journaldesfemmes.fr/fiches-maladies/2687339-vaccin-pfizer-biontech-covid-origine-efficacite-effets-secondaires-variant-rappel-2-eme-dose/" target="_blank">Franta introduce incepand cu 14 aprilie un interval intre doze de 42 de zile</a>.</p><p>In cazul Romaniei, este cel mai relevant sa ne referim la vaccinul Pfizer, de departe cel mai utilizat pana acum (peste 80% din dozele administrate). Pentru acest vaccin, tara noastra a aplicat intervalul intre doze de 21 de zile, prescris de producator. Iar acest lucru se vede cu ochiul liber pe graficul proportiei celor care au primit macar o doza de vaccin (mai jos): fiecare accelerare, cand mai multi oameni primesc prima doza, este urmata dupa 3 saptamani de o franare, cand cele mai multe doze sunt administrate ca doza de rapel celor deja vaccinati, pe model ciclic 'stop and go'.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsnig_MafA4E_mhGpdC3nT1UKVuDRauVCBI7uCo9rIUmW4QXR-CrWwo9Ruyw12tucF4ds8GYCi6GU6hXsCho56_AenM1wTjT_9vhVnq7COvwumjFnGtT27W2kXH_2Aq0lhzGj4qspcL7s/s843/stopandgo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="843" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsnig_MafA4E_mhGpdC3nT1UKVuDRauVCBI7uCo9rIUmW4QXR-CrWwo9Ruyw12tucF4ds8GYCi6GU6hXsCho56_AenM1wTjT_9vhVnq7COvwumjFnGtT27W2kXH_2Aq0lhzGj4qspcL7s/w400-h365/stopandgo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Cu prima accelerare, in a doua parte a lunii ianuarie, Romania a depasit media europeana a proportiei persoanelor vaccinate, dar in februarie a trebuit sa franeze pentru a administra a doua doza, revenind la media europeana. La inceputul lunii martie a accelerat din nou, mergand in pas cu media, dar exact dupa 3 saptamani, incepand cu 21 martie, a incetinit pentru a administra a doua doza celor vaccinati cu 21 de zile inainte... iar de data aceasta a ramas in urma mediei europene. Diferenta dintre Romania si media UE la acest indicator, se vede clar pe grafic, este mai mare si creste mai rapid decat diferenta la dozele de vaccin administrate (primul grafic din acest articol).</p><p>Aceasta ramanere in urma din ultima perioada la acest indicator (al persoanelor vaccinate macar cu o doza) se explica pe de o parte prin faptul ca celelalte tari au accelerat vaccinarea, facand pur si simplu din ce in ce mai multe injectii, in timp ce Romania a pastrat o viteza mai degraba constanta. Dar aceasta diferenta se vede deja din primul grafic de mai sus si nu explica decat partial ramanerea in urma din ultimul grafic. Restul explicatiei tine de cresterea intervalului dintre prima si a doua doza in alte tari europene, in timp ce Romania a ramas la intervalul prescris initial.</p><p>Ultimul grafic, in care Romania este cel mai mult ramasa in urma, este, din pacate, cel mai relevant, mult mai important decat al doilea grafic, unde Romania este inca peste medie. Si asta pentru ca, in conditiile actualului val al pandemiei, este mai important sa ai cat mai multi cetateni cu un anumit grad de imunitate - si stim acum ca o prima doza de vaccin ajuta in buna masura. De asta Marea Britanie, Franta, Belgia si altii dau prioritate primei doze pentru cat mai multi cetateni, marind intervalul pentru administrarea celei de-a doua doze. Cand poti administra o doza de vaccin, castigul de imunizare pentru colectivitate este mai mare daca administrezi prima doza unui nevaccinat, mai degraba decat a doua doza cuiva deja vaccinat. Romania, in schimb, mentinand intervalul original de administrare, risca sa aiba un impact mai mic cu vaccinarea in situatia critica actuala, cand spitalele sunt saturate si ar trebui facute toate eforturile pentru a 'aplatiza' curba pandemiei.</p><p>Mai este un argument pentru a da prioritate primei doze. In contextul unui tot mai raspandit curent de opinie anti-vaccin, este probabil ca in urmatoarele luni sa ajungem in Europa intr-o situatie in care vor fi destule vaccinuri disponibile, dar nu si oameni interesati de ele. A da prioritate primei doze inseamna si a gestiona mai bine cererea pentru vaccinuri, vaccinand pe cat mai multi: cei care deja au luat prima doza este foarte probabil ca vor reveni pentru a doua si nu vor mai fi atat de speriati de efectele secundare sau de tot felul de teorii ale conspiratiei. Romania, in schimb, administrand a doua doza in numar mare in detrimentul accelerarii primeia, 'consuma' din aceasta cerere 'captiva' pentru vaccin si risca sa se confrunte mai devreme cu obstacolul ridicat de curentul anti-vaccinist.</p><p>In lumina celor de mai sus, rezultatul combinat al acestei diferente de abordare fata de mainstream-ul european ar putea fi pentru Romania:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>o forma mai acuta a actualului val al pandemiei, cu numar mai mare de victime si o presiune mai mare asupra sistemului medical; si</li><li>o epuizare mai rapida a cererii pentru vaccin datorita curentului de opinie anti-vaccinist, riscand sa lase tara cu o proportie mai mica de imunizare la nivelul populatiei, si deci mai vulnerabila in fata urmatoarelor pusee de infectie cu coronavirus.</li></ul><div>Poate ca ar fi momentul ca guvernantii sa inceteze razboiul mediatic si cautarea de vinovati si sa vada ce se poate imbunatati la programul de vaccinare, privind si la exemplul altor tari. Cresterea intervalului dintre doze ar putea fi parte a solutiei.</div><p></p><p></p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-86803260812312677652021-03-22T16:43:00.004+01:002021-04-12T20:18:51.573+02:00Cutting through the noise on vaccines, some counter-intuitive truths (EN)<p>Without false modesty, this blog has been ahead of the curve on the AstraZeneca (AZ) covid vaccines affair. It exposed <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">almost two months ago</a> the arrogant lies of Pascal Soriot, AZ's CEO, in his attempts to bamboozle the EU into accepting that it should be treated as a second-class client, hinted at the likely foul play by the UK Government and at the <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/who-is-bully-now-en.html" target="_blank">toxic mix with Brexit politics</a>. By March, statements made here - e.g. on the de facto vaccine export ban instituted by the UK or on the need to limit exports to ensure that AZ is serving fairly its EU contract - were part of the line taken by senior EU officials, such as European Council President <a href="https://nsl.consilium.europa.eu/104100/Newsletter/jzdplbo3pahrhalxxvpfysnmodokddwig74ibwkwljke5i37yyrq?culture=en-GB" target="_blank">Charles Michel</a>, or European Commission President <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-threatens-astrazeneca-with-vaccine-export-ban/" target="_blank">Ursula von der Leyen</a>. </p><p>On the other hand, this blog didn't hesitate to call out <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/02/europeans-shooting-themselves-in-foot.html" target="_blank">the ineptitude</a> of some national leaders' comments on the AZ vaccine and of some national regulators' decisions on its roll-out - a stupidity compounded by last week's temporary suspension of the vaccine in almost half of the Member States, based on mainly political considerations, in spite of the advice of EU's own regulator. And it also criticised the Commission's short-lived intention to invoke Art.16 of the Northern Ireland protocol as a very consequential political gaffe, which gave a pretext for the UK to try to wriggle out of its legal obligations.</p><p>As the vaccine-related escalation between the EU and the UK is now <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-uk/eu-rebuffs-uk-calls-to-ship-astrazeneca-covid-vaccines-from-europe-idUSKBN2BD0RZ" target="_blank">in full swing</a>, the ongoing war of narratives creates a lot of noise that can easily distract from the fundamentals. It's therefore timely to take a step back, look at the bigger picture and scratch a bit the surface to bring up some rather counter-intuitive insights. </p><p>I will try to argue that:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the AZ (and broader covid vaccines) scandal is more of a political stake than an actual public health issue; </li><li>in the medium term the EU's problem is not the shortage of vaccines, but a very different one;</li><li>UK's apparent triumph on the vaccines is far from vindicating Brexit, rather the contrary; and </li><li>the EU is very well positioned for success in the longer term, but only if it manages to overcome its existential challenges in the short term.</li></ul><p></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><b>There will be a lot of drama on vaccines, but the stakes are mainly political</b></p><p>When the European Council (heads of state and government from the 27 Member States) meet virtually later this week, they will have to make some consequential decisions, such as whether the EU should take the road trodden by the US and the UK (the latter in all but name) and ban the export of covid vaccines from the continent, at least for AZ as it is still far from fulfilling its contracted supply to the EU. In the meantime, the British Prime Minister is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387989/Boris-Johnson-call-EU-leaders-defuse-threats-blocking-Covid-vaccines.html" target="_blank">frantically calling national leaders</a> of key EU countries to persuade them not to do such a thing, which would apparently slow down significantly the world-beating (I'm using the expression without any irony here) pace of vaccination in the UK. At immediate stake are the vaccines produced at Halix, a plant in The Netherlands, which both the EU and the UK claim.</p><p>All this drama could make you think that a lot of lives depend on those vaccines. But this isn't really the case. In the UK, the situation is already much better than it was two months ago, as the country - thanks to its lockdown rather than its vaccination success - has overcome the third wave of the pandemic. In the EU, on the other hand, the third wave is only starting and whatever is done on vaccines at this stage will not make a major difference, lockdowns will be needed to 'flatten the curve' once again and sadly many more deaths are unavoidable; moreover, the EU has used quite little to date from the few supplies of AZ vaccine that it has received, in part due to people's <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/trust-oxford-astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-wanes-europe-survey/" target="_blank">reluctance to take it</a> after the mixed signals from national leaders. </p><p>But why is there still so much drama then?</p><p>Basically because the stakes are very high in terms of political optics, as I explained already <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">back in January</a> and again <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/03/can-vaccination-prevent-new-lockdowns.html" target="_blank">last week</a>. </p><p>For the UK, its continued 'triumph' on vaccines is part of the narrative that justifies Brexit, diverting public attention from the many downsides of having left the EU's single market and customs union, including significant economic costs and possible threats to national unity and to peace in Northern Ireland. The stakes are very high for Boris Johnson's government, since 'getting Brexit done' was the slogan that won him the last elections and the vaccination roll-out is the only success story that he can boast of so far. </p><p>For the EU, being seen across the continent as the 'sucker' of the vaccines saga can be devastating in terms of legitimacy, especially in the context of the deadly wave of the pandemic that is gathering speed. While the Brits start opening up and have clearly left the worst behind, Europe is again closing down and is set to suffer once more a large economic and human toll from covid. People will notice the contrast and will easily forget that the UK has already had more dead from covid than any EU country, or that the vaccines <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/03/can-vaccination-prevent-new-lockdowns.html" target="_blank">cannot help much in this wave</a>, only later. The EU may well become the scapegoat for the perceived failure, damaging seriously its prospects and viability. A free-for-all in which individual countries bypass the EU by dealing bilaterally with the vaccine producers or inviting more non-EU approved vaccines from Russia or China can even spell EU's unravelling.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>The EU has done rather well on vaccine procurement, but its problem lays elsewhere</b></p><p>The EU has certainly got quite a few things wrong and detailing them might deserve a separate post. In brief, it has been naive until recently and insufficiently vigilant assuming that the others (and in particular the UK) would play fair; it made a bad mistake mentioning Art.16 of the Northern Ireland protocol; it had disastrous communication and completely lost the narrative war last January, allowing itself to be depicted as the villain in the AZ scandal; and some national leaders like French President Macron made a fool of themselves and undermined the joint effort by denigrating the AZ vaccine.</p><p>But contrary to what you read in much of the media, the EU has done really well on vaccine procurement and production, considering the possible alternative scenarios. It was never set to achieve collective immunity by March, but by late summer. In the process, it ensured equal access to vaccines for all its 27 countries, and at the best prices available worldwide. Notwithstanding the media stories, its vaccine contracts are <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/02/as-britains-cheating-on-vaccines-is.html" target="_blank">not inferior</a> to those of the UK. In terms of production, suffice to say that most covid vaccines are manufactured in the EU and many non-EU countries, from Canada to Israel, from Australia to Mexico, from Moldova to Japan, have received EU-made vaccines. The EU is also the main contributor to the COVAX scheme designed to facilitate access to vaccines by poorer countries.</p><p>And the bottom line is: notwithstanding the high drama of the first quarter, and in spite of being shortchanged by AZ, the EU's vaccination drive remains by and large on track and is set to significantly accelerate in the second quarter - in fact, it is already accelerating as of late March.</p><p>In two-three months from now, the shortage of vaccines in the EU will only be a memory of the past. There will be sufficient vaccines. </p><p>But the more likely problem is that there won't be sufficient people willing to take the vaccines available.</p><p>Indeed, vaccine skepticism is <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-vaccine-skeptic/" target="_blank">nothing new in Europe</a>. It has been compounded during the covid crisis both by the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-03-05/after-mixed-messages-europe-warns-against-vaccine-shopping" target="_blank">mixed messages from political leaders</a>, as well as by <a href="https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/azerbaijan_en/90950/Pro-kremlin%20disinformation:%20Covid-19%20Vaccines" target="_blank">subversive foreign propaganda</a>. In several EU countries, the proportion of respondents declaring themselves willing to take a vaccine against the coronavirus is well below the level of vaccination needed to achieve herd immunity against the virus. </p><p>The EU should be able to immunise virtually all its adult population by the end of summer, in time for preventing a significant return of the pandemic in autumn. But the anti-vaxxer movement may hinder the vaccination drive.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>UK's success on the vaccines doesn't vindicate Brexit, nor does it expose the EU as a failure</b></p><p>Here is what you can read in most of mainstream media, not to speak of tabloids: the UK's obviously superior vaccination drive vindicates Brexit and shows why a heavy bureaucratic machinery like the EU is bound to fail.</p><p>A more careful, less drama-driven analysis of the situation shows however a different picture.</p><p>The vaccine supply crisis, like the one with protective equipment last year or the ongoing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/21/global-shortage-in-computer-chips-reaches-crisis-point" target="_blank">global shortage of semiconductors</a> show that the pre-covid model of efficiency-driven global supply chains is cracking. The talk and increasingly the action are now about on-shoring production, securing 'strategic autonomy' and access to critical resources, strengthening resilience against external shocks. The post-covid world will clearly not be as globalised and interconnected as it used to be, it will be more protectionist, more 'geopolitical' and less economically integrated. In fact, Trump's aggressive 'America first' politics and China's gaming of the system had already weakened the free trade, rule-based paradigm before covid, the trend has only accelerated since last year.</p><p>Against this background, regional integration - of the type represented by the EU - may well prove to be a relatively successful fallback level from globalisation. The size of its single market, with a common regulatory regime and no internal borders, can compete more efficiently with the US and China, the leading economies. At this scale, efficient supply chains with a high level of complexity and specialisation can still thrive.</p><p>On the contrary, individual countries wishing to become 'global' and trade with the whole world, as the post-Brexit UK aspires, may find life outside a trading block rather challenging. Certainly, the UK still has a global influence and will be able to punch above its weight on the world scene - but it will find itself in a weaker position in relation to the big actors, and will find it more challenging to navigate a less open, more fragmented international system. </p><p>As a matter of fact, the vaccine saga is a good example. Nothing prevented the UK from going its own way on vaccine procurement while it was still inside the EU. Admittedly, as an EU member they wouldn't have been able to prevent AZ from shipping UK-made vaccines to other EU countries. But being outside now, it is vulnerable to export restrictions that the EU may decide to introduce. If on vaccines, where the UK is among the best positioned countries in the world (with world class research and industrial capacity), it cannot be self-sufficient and remains reliant on the EU, it will face bigger challenges in many other sectors.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>The future belongs to the EU, but only if it can survive the present</b></p><p>In response to the covid crisis, after a rather wobbly beginning, the EU has been able to put together its largest recovery budget financed - for the first time ever - through common debt, has maintained consistent focus on its climate and digital agendas, and has taken steps for a more integrated health policy (traditionally an area managed by individual countries). I have argued above that even its joint vaccination effort is not the failure that it is painted by the media - in fact, it is still on track in spite of the setbacks, and much preferable to member states competing against each other for the scarce supplies.</p><p>Of course not everything has worked as intended. Many countries still introduced unilateral travel restrictions, against the commonly agreed recommendations. A couple of countries chose to unilaterally approve and use Chinese and Russian vaccines not cleared by the EU-level medicine agency. Quite a few chose to restrict the use of the AZ jab notwithstanding the advice from the same EU agency. And in line with long standing political habits, national leaders often tend to blame the EU for their own failings.</p><p>As explained above, the post-covid era may well vindicate the regional integration model pioneered by the EU as a viable alternative to globalisation, which is receding. But for the EU to get there, it needs two things: first, to survive and overcome the significant challenges that it faces in the short term, starting with the highly flammable politics of its perceived vaccination failures in the context of a new, deadly wave of the pandemic. The following couple of months will be turbulent, with the EU facing both an internal crisis of legitimacy, as well as a hostile external environment - including an increasingly toxic relation with its former member the UK.</p><p>Second, the EU really needs to bring its act together and learn from recent mistakes, from the unfortunate mentioning of Art.16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to the communication debacle since January. This "geopolitical Commission", as it likes to call itself, although it hasn't done too badly overall, needs to raise its game because the exceptional situation requires nothing less. </p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-16331382252303777982021-03-18T15:12:00.001+01:002021-03-18T15:12:41.860+01:00Can vaccination prevent new lockdowns in Europe? (EN)<p>Back in January, in the second part of <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">this post</a>, I anticipated that EU countries were facing an imminent, devastating third wave of the pandemic over the coming months, driven by the more contagious mutations of the virus. I also wrote that the vaccines roll-out, even if proceeding according to plan (which it hasn't, mainly due to AstraZeneca's failure to supply on its contract with the EU), would not be able to help flatten the curve - they were simply too little, too late for this wave.</p><p>In the meantime, much of the talk in Europe has been about gradually lifting restrictions introduced at the beginning of winter. </p><p>But one and a half month later, as more and more countries see again their infections and deaths going up again (below figure from <a href="https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en" target="_blank">ECDC</a>) and their hospitals under strain, the tone is changing and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/europe-germany-italy-enter-third-wave-of-covid-19-pandemic-2021-3?r=US&IR=T" target="_blank">re-confinement is back on the table</a> across Europe.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnUmrVCtc4j30pHNcaFSZW_uqbuhLIqQjEEseGfOeIISgg554nxjXEonCjEkw59aZuXQKPqXGpIARrUit38iLtC66HzG2HiTfwlUstudEYybo4TnsCfP9-QEjC_HKrpeiK2ISkOu-Aftc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="1234" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnUmrVCtc4j30pHNcaFSZW_uqbuhLIqQjEEseGfOeIISgg554nxjXEonCjEkw59aZuXQKPqXGpIARrUit38iLtC66HzG2HiTfwlUstudEYybo4TnsCfP9-QEjC_HKrpeiK2ISkOu-Aftc/" width="320" /></a></div><br />The lingering question is: would a faster vaccination have helped significantly mitigate this new wave of the pandemic, so as to avoid renewed lockdowns? <p></p><p>It's a legitimate question, especially as one compares with the UK, which, having achieved a much higher vaccination rate than continental Europe, is seeing its case count fall and is preparing to emerge from lockdown.</p><p>And linked to this, what is the level of vaccination where one can hope to see, if not 'herd immunity' (which we know requires around 70% of people to be immune), at least a meaningful impact on the virus propagation, a noticeable 'flattening of the curve' without the need for tough lockdown-type restrictions?</p><p>By looking at the available evidence from different countries with different levels of vaccination and at different points in the pandemic wave, the answer to the first question is, sadly, that <b>even a flawless vaccination rollout wouldn't have avoided the need for fresh lockdowns in Europe.</b></p><p>The answer to the second question is more complicated and depends on a number of other factors (e.g. how many people in a given country already have some immunity after having been infected with covid in the earlier waves), but it points to a level of vaccination that EU countries are very unlikely to reach before summer. So if vaccination can help Europe re-open safely and broadly, this might only be the case from next autumn.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>I have looked at different countries that have a higher vaccination rate than the EU, comparing their historic data on covid cases (number of new cases confirmed through positive tests - using the 7-day rolling average for the trend) with the evolution of their vaccination rates (as the cumulative number of vaccine doses administered per 100 inhabitants). In particular, I focused on this simple fact: what was the vaccination rate when the number of new cases peaked before starting its descent?</p><p>As an example, see below the corresponding charts for Israel. It shows that the number of new cases in the latest wave of the pandemic peaked in Israel around 17 January, and on that date the country had a vaccination rate of 29.62.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy7z-Lu9USv8rtzP6LO1q7GiIk7xBievnXa0TUhjDTRv-7MHmAMtIxv-tURAHQXxBEUUWw9rfyKOqYwNaQqOaYhWrAWbqej4YxgESXIlhJJmfw6ckmFZmldL1hle0RoImfMcM3-l0n9FU/s864/I.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="864" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy7z-Lu9USv8rtzP6LO1q7GiIk7xBievnXa0TUhjDTRv-7MHmAMtIxv-tURAHQXxBEUUWw9rfyKOqYwNaQqOaYhWrAWbqej4YxgESXIlhJJmfw6ckmFZmldL1hle0RoImfMcM3-l0n9FU/w216-h199/I.jpg" width="216" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7E6vvRo4H-LiNRJE3whoQk4jfg68RvKJDrrFTyKTleciZHT3DwkHKubVcMnOcrKpqhB8Yq6cltWdm4iUIs3otz6AzmosrQIav1s7OzlxkorOp5fgfARZRFgsv_9CAX-D1xvJbrFmEzoE/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="498" data-original-width="892" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7E6vvRo4H-LiNRJE3whoQk4jfg68RvKJDrrFTyKTleciZHT3DwkHKubVcMnOcrKpqhB8Yq6cltWdm4iUIs3otz6AzmosrQIav1s7OzlxkorOp5fgfARZRFgsv_9CAX-D1xvJbrFmEzoE/w280-h157/image.png" width="280" /></a><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Using a similar approach, we will see, for instance, that:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The number of new cases peaked in the United Arab Emirates on 30 January, when they had a vaccination rate of 31.49.</li><li>In the US, new cases peaked on 8 January, when the vaccination rate was only 2.00 (negligible!).</li><li>In the UK, the vaccination rate at the peak of new cases (9 January) was around 3.9 (again very small).</li><li>Chile, on the other hand, is as we speak (data from 17 March) still on the upward slope of the 3rd wave of the pandemic, in other words new cases still haven't peaked, although it has a vaccination rate of 40.70!</li><li>Similarly, Serbia still sees increasing number of cases while it has administered 30.53 vaccine doses per hundred inhabitants.</li><li>Hungary appears to have peaked just recently (15 March) in terms of new cases, with a vaccination rate of 18.08 - I would however treat the data around 15 March with some caution, since the date coincides with the country's National Day.</li></ul><div>While the above examples - and the list could continue... - don't show any consistent pattern and while a number of factors (such as the different types of vaccines used) are not accounted for, one conclusion still emerges quite clearly in my view: that <b>the rate of vaccination is not the determining factor in mitigating the current wave of the pandemic.</b></div></div><div>Some countries have managed to slow the infection rates with very little vaccines, by applying measures already used before the vaccines were even available, such as lockdowns (clearly the case in the UK). Others haven't been able to flatten the curve even with a sizeable part of their population vaccinated.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are several implications for the coming period.</div><div><br /></div><div>First, that whatever we do on vaccines will not bring relief in the short run - at least not in Europe with its current vaccination rates. It will take months for vaccination to reach a level where it can have a meaningful impact on the pandemic. Meanwhile, we are dealing with a surging third wave and it will be unavoidable to see more sickness and death, as well as more lockdowns in the coming period.</div><div><br /></div><div>Second, that a vaccine-driven re-opening is not for tomorrow. The European Commission's aim to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1181" target="_blank">introduce 'Digital Green Certificates'</a> by this summer should not be seen for more than it is: a limited fix to get around the more stringent travel restrictions currently in place (such as mandatory quarantines) and restore a semblance of free movement, the most cherished right by Europeans. Holding that green certificate will not mean total freedom, nor getting 'back to normal', nor forgetting about covid. </div><div><br /></div><div>Third, and this is a more optimistic conclusion, that vaccines will still help us. With the warmer weather kicking in and people being able to spend more time outdoors, we are likely to benefit from a relative respite from the virus in the Northern Hemisphere over the summer months, as was also the case last year. But this time we will be able to use this period for reaching, before autumn, vaccination rates that are likely to make a real difference. So there are good chances for this third wave to be the last of this magnitude, of this gravity - the next one should catch many of us vaccinated and should therefore be significantly milder. There is light at the end of the tunnel, it's just that the tunnel is somewhat longer than many were hoping.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not least, against this background it becomes clear that the <a href="https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/eu-threatens-vaccine-export-ban-prompting-uk-australian-backlash" target="_blank">vaccine rivalries</a> among Western nations are not about the real problem at hand, but more of a distraction, you may even call it silly politics. Whether and how fast the EU catches up with Britain or the US on vaccination is largely irrelevant for this virus. All of them (UK, US, EU) will have gone through the third wave of the pandemic with significant human and economic costs that the vaccines couldn't save.</div><div>But still, it's far from trivial. As <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">I argued</a> back in January:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>The coming wave will be the deadliest so far in Europe, with or without the vaccine.</i></div><i>But this happening against the background of a bungled vaccine roll-out due to supply shortages, while across the Channel the UK is emerging from the third wave and immunizes its citizens at a much faster clip, will be politically explosive. A full vindication of Brexit would be the cherry on the pie. The collapse of the EU itself cannot be ruled out. The joint action on vaccines by the 27 member states, hailed as a big triumph for European solidarity only one month ago, could become its undoing in the coming few weeks.<br />Hence, for the EU getting its vaccine roll-out back on track as fast as possible is an existential stake.</i></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And this will explain a lot of what you'll be seeing in the news these days.</div><div><br /></div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09867744208654696507noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-87809638824691622542021-02-18T16:30:00.013+01:002021-02-19T23:17:53.736+01:00As Britain's cheating on vaccines is revealed, the EU has a duty to react (EN)<p>There isn't much to add to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html" target="_blank">CNN's revelations about UK's contract with AstraZeneca</a> (AZ) for on covid-19 vaccines, but it's worthwhile summarising the main facts:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The British authorities have been apparently trying to keep the deal with AZ as a national security secret, but inadvertently made it available online back in November last year.</li><li>UK's contract with AZ is very similar to EU's contract, in particular with regard to the "best reasonable efforts" clause. </li><li>UK's contract with AZ is officially dated one day after EU's contract with the company.</li><li>The British contract also mentions that vaccines can be delivered from production sites in the EU, just like the EU contract also lists production sites in the UK.</li></ul><div>In brief: no significant difference between the two contracts, whether in respect to the "best reasonable efforts" clause, to the time of concluding the contracts (only a day's difference, with EU's the earlier one) or to the sourcing of the promised supply.</div><div>These are explosive revelations and the implications deserve a discussion.</div><div><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div>To recall, back in January Pascal Soriot, AZ's CEO, said that the "best reasonable efforts" clause meant that there was no binding obligation to deliver to the EU, and - to justify why AZ was still delivering in full and on schedule to the UK while failing the EU - that he had a priority commitment to the Brits because they had signed a contract earlier. </div><div>I <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">wrote at the time</a> about his brazen attempt to gaslight the EU and public opinion on AZ's failure to meet its contractual obligation while giving preferential treatment to the UK, showing that none of his arguments could stand scrutiny. But I didn't expect that he would be plainly lying on record, as it has now become clear. </div><div><br /></div><div>To put things into context: AZ's substantial cut of its deliveries to the EU significantly delayed the vaccination programme in the 27 Member States. Meanwhile, the UK has been vaccinating at speed, receiving timely supplies of both the AZ vaccine (from both EU- and UK-based plants) and of the BioNTech-Pfizer one (exclusively from EU-based plants). The European Commission was harshly criticised for signing a contract with AZ too late, for being too bureaucratic, for incompetence on pharma contracts. The whole issue became poisonously mixed with post-Brexit politics, with the EU's 'failure' and UK's 'triumph' widely presented as a vindication for Brexit. Paradoxically, while the EU produces three quarters of the world's vaccines, it emerged 'defeated' in the vaccination efforts.</div><div><br /></div><div>The reality, as I <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html" target="_blank">already argued</a> and is now becoming crystal clear is very different: the EU did nothing wrong and AZ is in breach of contract. Moreover, my initial hypothesis (based on circumstantial evidence at the time) that there has been foul play by the UK is now largely confirmed by the facts as they emerge.</div><div><br /></div><div>In brief, we now know for a fact that the UK has enforced a <i>de facto</i> export ban vs the EU on the AZ vaccines, while in turn it has been supplied from the EU with both AZ (at least in late 2020) and with BioNTech-Pfizer vaccines (continuously since December 2020). We also know that the UK government has tried to keep secret relevant information related to their contract with AZ and their vaccine supplies, while encouraging the narrative taking hold in the media according to which the UK had signed its contract earlier and had secured better supply guarantees.</div><div><br /></div><div>We don't know yet whether Pascal Soriot's misleading and arrogant statements in relation to the EU were directly encouraged or dictated by the British government. But there are strong reasons to believe so, otherwise why would a businessman with a lot to lose choose to play with political fire? I have no doubt we will learn more about this in the coming period.</div><div><br /></div><div>The EU, and the Commission in particular, has been very timid on this issue so far, especially after its uncharacteristic blunder of mentioning the possibility to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol in the context of instituting export controls on vaccines (a mistake promptly <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/who-is-bully-now-en.html" target="_blank">capitalised upon by the Brits</a>). The export notification system introduced for vaccines has remained a simple formality so far, as all shipments to third countries were allowed to proceed.</div><div>But in the face of the latest revelations on Britain's cheating on vaccines, the Commission has an urgent duty to take its responsibilities to defend the interests of the EU and of its citizens. Failure to do so would not only translate into more 'triumphs' for the anti-EU propaganda of the Brexiteers, but would lead directly to unnecessary loss of human lives in the Member States.</div><div><br /></div><div>Concretely, the Commission should:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><strike>Open a legal case against AZ for breach of contract, claiming significant damages and the proportional compensation of failed deliveries from the future production, including at UK plants.</strike> UPDATE 19/02: The lawsuit appears not to be an option in light of the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-commission-contract-astrazeneca-ties-hands-lawsuits/" target="_blank">latest revelations on the (full, non-edited) contract</a>.</li><li>Enforce its vaccine export controls by applying a strict proportional criterion to deliveries from the EU to third countries - so that it is no longer possible for the EU to be left waiting while other countries are supplied on schedule. It's only fair for production shortages to impact proportionally on all buyers, not on the EU alone.</li><li>In relation to third countries, enforce a reciprocity principle: a country that receives vaccines from the EU cannot ban its local producers from supplying the EU.</li><li>Not least, set the record straight and change the narrative on UK's vaccine 'triumph' and EU's 'failure'. The reality is that the UK has cheated, and that the EU has perhaps been too naive or too timid to stand for itself. As facts come into the open, there should be a deliberate communication effort about them, to prevent the truth being swept under the rug.</li></ul><div>As to UK's bullying in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, I expect the Commission - after having already admitted and rapidly corrected its mistake on Article 16 - to keep its cool. Vice-president <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/10/brussels-refuses-to-change-northern-ireland-protocol-without-uk-compliance" target="_blank">Sefcovic's line</a> that the UK has first a duty to implement the protocol in good faith before asking for changes to it is a good start. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><p></p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-27733138539965494692021-02-04T11:51:00.008+01:002021-02-04T11:56:18.962+01:00On vaccines, Europeans are shooting themselves in the foot... again (EN)<p>After the European Commission's blunder on invoking - even briefly for a couple of hours last Friday - Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which offered a golden opportunity to the UK <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0203/1194705-brexit/">to pressure the EU</a> into making further post-Brexit accommodations, the Europeans are again scoring an own goal in the vaccines saga.</p><p>This time it's not so much about Brussels, but about national leaders and authorities.</p><p>The decision by several countries (Germany, France, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Belgium... and counting) to limit the use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca covid vaccine to those under 65 (or even under 55 in one country), compounded by statements such as <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-astrazeneca-macron-quasi-ineffective-older-pe/">this one by French president Emmanuel Macron</a>, is a big mistake and an act of self-harm on many levels.</p><p>It is wrong on the facts. It undermines the EU vaccination strategy and the countries' own vaccination efforts. And it weakens the legal case that the EU has against AstraZeneca for non-performance of their contract to supply vaccines.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><b>Wrong on the facts</b></p><p>President Macron's <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-astrazeneca-macron-quasi-ineffective-older-pe/">statement</a> that the AstraZeneca vaccine is ineffective in older people doesn't deserve much discussion, it's simply a dishonest, misleading assertion in purely Trumpian style. But even the more measured approach by some national authorities to refrain from giving the vaccine to seniors for the time being appears exaggerated.</p><p>There is no evidence whatsoever that the AstraZeneca jab is ineffective for the elderly. The issue is that the data on its efficacy among this group is yet insufficiently robust from a statistical viewpoint, due to the small sample of seniors in the main clinical trial carried out so far. Even so, other evidence (e.g. on the <a href="https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/astrazeneca-oxford-immune-response/">immune response</a>, or on the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/study-finds-covid-19-vaccine-may-reduce-virus-transmission">reduction in virus transmission</a>) strongly suggests that the vaccine is working as intended. The evidence was deemed good enough by the European Medecines Agency (EMA) to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine on 29 January for use in all age groups in the EU.</p><p>The extensive clinical trial that is ongoing in the US should soon plug the gap on the statistical strength of data on the vaccine's efficacy among the elderly. One can hope that the authorities in EU countries who have been hesitant so far will be as quick in dropping their reservations once the evidence becomes compelling.</p><p><b>Undermining the EU's vaccination strategy</b></p><p>The EU and its member states committed to a joint approach to vaccination against the coronavirus, meaning centralised approval of the vaccines by the EMA, centralised procurement and equitable distribution of vaccines to all the countries. Indeed, there is no other reasonable way for an integrated continent, with a single market and a right to free movement of people across borders.</p><p>National authorities second guessing EMA's authorisation of the AstraZeneca vaccine are undermining one of the main tenets of this common approach, and undermining trust in EMA's competence at a time when the Agency is already under huge political pressure for the time it is taking to give its authorisations. So EMA is criticised for being too slow, and when it comes through its decisions are questioned. Such discredit of the EMA by the very EU countries who decided to entrust it with the centralised approval of the vaccines plays perfectly into the hands of the Hungarian government, which has already gone its own way by approving unilaterally vaccines from Russia and China in a non-transparent way.</p><p><b>Undermining national vaccination efforts</b></p><p>In addition to affecting EU unity, countries are shooting themselves in the foot by restricting the usage of the AstraZeneca vaccine for the elderly.</p><p>All EU countries are facing significant vaccine shortages that hamper their efforts to immunise as many people as possible before they are imminently hit by the third wave of the pandemic (driven by the more contagious variants of the virus). The elderly are the most vulnerable population, with the highest mortality from covid. So reducing the availability of vaccines to the elderly will very likely translate in extra deaths in the coming period.</p><p>Moreover, sending mixed signals about one of the few vaccines available will only revive anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories and the general reluctance of a non-negligible part of the population. Indeed, if we are to take seriously all the decisions by different authorities, one would have to conclude that the vaccine is not good for a French senior, but works well for a Bulgarian or a Brit of the same age. Not exactly a recipe for building trust in science.</p><p><b>Weakening EU's legal case against AstraZeneca</b></p><p>The scandal of AstraZeneca refusing to meet its contractual obligations to the EU (while at the same time delivering on schedule to the UK) is far from over. Despite some de-escalation and a pledge to reduce the shortfall in the first quarter of 2021, AstraZeneca is still in breach of contract. Indeed, some EU countries have announced that they are considering legal action against the pharma company for failure to deliver its promised vaccines. The extra covid victims in the coming period due to the shortage of vaccines is bound to be a powerful argument in the future litigation.</p><p>But by refusing the usage of the vaccine for the most vulnerable population group, EU countries are giving away that argument and undermining their own legal case. They will be responsible for the additional victims, not AstraZeneca's not delivering on their contract in bad faith.</p><p>You may say that making such calculations involving possible lives lost is cynical. I disagree: if anything, what is cynical is to keep potentially life-saving vaccines from the people who are most at risk.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let me be clear: all this saga is very complicated and far from over. It combines many different threads, from health to social and economic issues, from covid waves to vaccination, from science to conspiracy theories, from virus variants to Brexit politics.</p><p>Until very recently, the EU and its member states appeared to be the "adults in the room", understanding the need for cooperation, more or less keeping their cool (after a bout of panic at the very beginning of the pandemic), acting responsibly and in sync. But the past few days have seen a series of unforced errors that threaten to unravel their whole effort.</p><p>It is urgent that coordination and clear-headedness take again center stage.</p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-55240003388988262322021-01-31T15:11:00.004+01:002021-02-04T11:52:31.653+01:00Who is the bully now? (EN)<p>Since I <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html">posted yesterday</a> about the escalation of the covid vaccine row between the EU and the UK, events have taken an even uglier turn.</p><p>There is no doubt that the EU is on the defensive after its blunder Friday on the Irish border, even if it reversed it within hours (see a more elaborate explanation in my <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html">yesterday's post</a>... not such an outrage really, but an extremely bad move politically). But the humiliation of the EU that is feasted in British media and partly across the continent these days doesn't serve any good purpose. It is mostly driven by <i>schadenfreude</i> and fundamentally wrong. And the righteousness and hypocrisy of the British establishment are becoming unbearable.</p><p>The EU is presented as the villain from having attempted - in the face of a desperate shortage due to pharma companies reneging on their commitments - to protect its EU-made contracted vaccine supplies from the diversion to other countries. Meanwhile, the UK itself is operating a de facto export ban on AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccines manufactured on its territory, pretending that it has a right to monopolize the supply because it signed a contract earlier, notwithstanding AZ's contractual obligation to also supply the EU from its UK-based factories.</p><p>It now transpires that in addition to AZ having shipped EU-made vaccines to the UK last year, Pfizer also has been sending significant quantities to the US, while both companies are failing to deliver to the EU on their contracts. The EU is thus punished not for being slow, but for having leveraged its collective bargaining power to obtain the cheapest prices.</p><p>The UK "generously" offers to allow AZ to deliver vaccines to the EU... once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/uk-help-eu-not-affect-vaccine-timetable-liz-truss">it has finished inoculating all its adult population</a>, sometime in autumn. Meanwhile the EU is entering the third wave of the pandemic with very low immunisation rates due to a combination of a slow start vaccination process across its 27 member states and insufficient delivery by the vaccine providers - Pfizer and AZ.</p><p>Righteousness and hypocrisy are in even sharper display when it comes to the Irish border. The EU is universally condemned for having announced (and quickly reversed) the activation of Article 16 of the Norther Ireland protocol of UK's Withdrawal Agreement, with a view to prevent backdoor export of vaccines to the UK. But that Article 16 is part of the protocol - so invoking it cannot be construed in any way as a breach of the protocol. Again, as I also <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-escalation-between-eu-and.html">wrote yesterday</a>, getting anywhere near Article 16 was a political gaffe... but certainly not an "incredible act of hostility" as <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/arlene-foster-eu-decision-trigger-203150265.html">Arlene Foster presented it</a>. If invoking Article 16 amounts to a quasi-declaration of war, why was it stipulated in the protocol in the first place?</p><p>What was, indeed, an incredible act of hostility were the UK Government's plans, last year, to override the Northern Ireland protocol by creating a different and contradictory legal framework through its proposed Internal Market act (abandoned in the meantime).</p><p>But why would British politicians, especially on the tory and DUP side, feign unlimited outrage? Part of the motivation is to change the narrative from last year and present the EU rather than the UK as untrustworthy to uphold its commitments. But more importantly, because they want to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/30/arlene-foster-urges-boris-johnson-to-replace-covid-ni-protocol">use this opportunity to abolish</a> the Northern Ireland protocol altogether and wriggle out of the agreement that they ratified. </p><p>Who is the bully now?</p><p>Make no mistake: the public shaming of the EU for the sin of having stood up for itself in the covid vaccines scandal - admittedly having got it wrong politically and subsequently backpedaling on the issue of controlling the Irish border - is not a legitimate reaction born out of genuine outrage. It is a deliberate drive to humiliate and bully the EU in the context of post-Brexit politics, with the ultimate aim to <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205791/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-lumbering-EU-monster-panicked-showed-true-nature.html">vindicate Brexit</a>.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>The full vindication of Brexit will be achieved when not only the UK will emerge - as it already is - from the devastating third wave of the coronavirus pandemic while achieving high rates of vaccination (maybe not 'world beating', but highest among Western countries), but when by contrast the EU will have failed at protecting its citizens and will have suffered many more covid deaths. The feigned indignation in the media and among UK politicians these days are part of this scenario.</p><p>On the EU side, mistakes were clearly made these days, but the biggest one has been to let the narrative that now dominates the media (with the EU as the villain and the European Commission as the incompetent bully) to take hold and not expose the foul play by the UK Government and others on vaccines. I hope it's not too late to fight back in this communication debacle and set the record straight, with facts in the open for all to judge. And stand firm to the UK pressure on the vaccine exports and on the Northern Ireland protocol.</p><p>Failure to do that will leave the world a darker place and the actual bullies triumphant.</p><p><br /></p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-23669107103014549022021-01-30T15:30:00.010+01:002021-02-04T11:52:47.277+01:00The dangerous escalation between the EU and the UK on covid-19 vaccines (EN)<p>The snowballing developments over the past few days, after AstraZeneca (AZ) announced a significant cut in its scheduled supplies of covid-19 vaccine to EU countries, have escalated to a war-like rhetoric between the UK and the EU, a raid by Belgian authorities at the AZ production site in Seneffe and the introduction of export controls on EU-manufactured vaccines. What's happening, really, and where is this coming from?</p><p>The narrative in the media about these events has been so far surprisingly simplistic and one-sided - not just in British tabloids like <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9203297/STEPHEN-GLOVER-day-bullies-Brussels-went-mad-Eurocrats-lost-plot.html">The Daily Mail</a>, but also in usually much more sober outlets like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-observer-view-on-the-vaccine-dispute-with-brussels">The Guardian</a> or the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55860540">BBC</a> and in many continental newspapers. It basically says that, due to its well-known bureaucratic heaviness, the EU was late to pass contracts with vaccine suppliers, slow with approving and distributing the jabs for use in its Member States and ineffective in the whole set-up of the vaccination campaign, which is in shambles. By contrast, the UK has been much nimbler with both purchases and approvals and as a result is way ahead of continental Europe with its vaccination efforts. Faced with a shortfall in vaccine supply, the EU has been throwing its weight around and trying to bully Britain into surrendering its own stocks. </p><p>It's fair to say that, at least for the time being, the EU is losing the narratives' war.</p><p>The actual story, however, might be considerably more complicated. </p><p>In this post I will present an alternative interpretation, largely based on information in the public domain, but also in part on speculation since some pieces of the puzzles are still missing. The near future may shed light on these aspects.</p><p>In a nutshell, my hypothesis is that the escalation is not simply due to the EU bureaucrats having 'lost the plot', but rather provoked by the conduct of AZ and of its CEO (which has been the immediate trigger for the crisis) and by perceived foul play from the UK on a very sensitive, politically explosive issue. </p><p>All parties have made mistakes and the situation is getting out of hand. The stakes are huge and the logic is increasingly that of a zero-sum game, which risks durably poisoning the post-Brexit relations.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><b>Has the EU been slow with vaccines?</b></p><p>Not really, not by EU standards in any case. It has been supporting vaccines development from an early stage and concluded advance purchase agreements with a number of manufacturers for over two billion doses, well ahead of the completion of required clinical trials and of the approval for use. The process to agree a common approach among 27 countries can indeed take some time, but again it was rather quick in this particular case. And such a common approach is more of a feature than a bug of the EU, as it allowed it to get by far the best deals worldwide on vaccines (paying for instance half the price Britain paid for the Pfizer vaccine, and a third of Israel's). Considering that the alternative was to let EU countries compete with each other on getting vaccines in a 'free for all' rush, blowing up the solidarity that keeps the block together and leaving the poorer members empty-handed, the outcome is arguably not so bad.</p><p>Admittedly, the EU wasn't as fast as the UK in approving the vaccines either. But it should be mentioned that the EU's approval is substantially different from the one granted by the UK - and one significant difference is who is liable if something goes wrong with the vaccines. To put it briefly: the UK chose to take more risks upfront, including liability in case of problems. This is a legitimate choice and is understandable considering the impact of the epidemic on its territory. It may also explain why the UK is so much more inclined than EU countries to tinker with the interval for administering the second dose, or even 'mixing and matching' different vaccines - they don't risk losing any guarantees from the producers, since these were already waived.</p><p><b>Why is the EU so furious at AZ's announced cutting of supplies?</b></p><p>The dramatic reduction of vaccine supplies to the EU in the first quarter of 2021 (by 60%) was announced unexpectedly at the last moment, just as the block was preparing to approve the Oxford/AZ vaccine for roll-out and the pace of vaccination was picking up in member states. This in itself would have been very unfortunate news. But what really turned an unpleasant situation into a full-blown crisis was the attitude of AZ CEO Pascal Soriot, who - with apparent backing from the UK - behaved incredibly arrogantly trying to gaslight the EU and to talk himself - including through media interviews - out of contractual obligations. When the history of these events will be eventually written, Pascal Soriot may well go down as the guy who singlehandedly (or rather with some help from London) turned an industrial mishap into an explosive political row.</p><p>The EU asked for clear explanations for the unexpected cuts and for a plan to remedy that. It also wanted to know how comes that AZ is still able to deliver on schedule to the UK as it lets the EU waiting. Soriot's 'explanations' were found to be revolting and nothing more than a smokescreen. He quoted the "best endeavours" clause to mean that there is no binding commitment to supply - in fact, that is a standard clause intended to cover for situations such as the vaccine not being approved (very likely a similar clause would exist in AZ's contract with the UK government). He claimed that AZ was bound to deliver its scheduled supplies to the UK before those to the EU because the UK had signed a contract first. But the obligation derives from the agreed scheduled for deliveries, not from the date when the contract was signed - and there is no clause in the contract with the EU suggesting that a third party would get preferential treatment. And he said that the supply chains are separate and therefore vaccines produced at UK sites cannot be delivered to the EU. But that's nonsense, because in the contract AZ listed its production sites in the UK along the ones in continental Europe, without distinction. Moreover, last December vaccine doses produced by AZ at its facilities in the EU were shipped to the UK.</p><p>You may wonder: why would a big pharma CEO behave so provocatively in relation with his biggest client, risking significant damage to the business (indeed, the AZ shares lost some 6% since the row started)? That's a good question, and we will get back to it. Only a hint for now: this might be less about economic and commercial interests, and more about politics. Indeed, Mr. Soriot has behaved more like a politician than a businessman.</p><p>And you could also legitimately ask: since the UK made a contract first, shouldn't they have an advantage? The answer is: fair enough, they have the advantage of choosing the quantities to contract while there is still spare capacity and of getting earlier deliveries before others also place their orders. But there is no reason to expect a preferential treatment vs other buyers in case of supply problems - unless such a preference is provided for in the contract. We don't know whether this is the case, since the UK and AZ keep their contract secret and even the timeline of actual deliveries is considered by the UK as a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9200919/Tories-accuse-Nicola-Sturgeon-vaccine-showboating.html" target="_blank">national security secret</a>. But if such a clause existed, the fact that a third party has preference should have been mentioned in the contract with the EU, which is not the case. The EU is thus fully entitled to expect to be treated fairly and in line with the contract that it signed; and if there are supply problems, there is no reason why they should affect the EU deliveries exclusively.</p><p><b>Why is the EU so desperate?</b></p><p>In addition to EU's palpable anger at how it has been treated by AZ (and by the UK, will come to this later), there is also something else - an increasing panic. The EU is generally working in a very calculated way, avoiding strident statements or sudden, radical action. Not so this time: the announcement of export controls (disguised as a "transparency mechanism"), the introduction and then the dropping of exceptional controls at the super-sensitive Irish border, are not characteristic for how the EU works.</p><p>The reason for the panic is what political leaders in Brussels and across the EU know is coming: a devastating third wave of the pandemic, driven by the more contagious 'UK variant' of the virus, which is spreading fast and becoming increasingly prevalent. What has happened over the past two months in the UK will be replicated across continental Europe in the next two months - indeed, it has already started in Portugal and Spain. Make no mistake: there will be tens of thousands of dead in Europe between now and Easter, we will see again horror scenes with overwhelmed hospitals and funeral services, all this in a context where people are already tired of the lockdowns, of the travel restrictions and increasingly feeling the economic hardship.</p><p>To be sure: even a rapid vaccine roll-out at this stage cannot prevent this unavoidable tragedy. The coming wave will be the deadliest so far in Europe, with or without the vaccine. </p><p>But this happening against the background of a bungled vaccine roll-out due to supply shortages, while across the Channel the UK is emerging from the third wave and immunizes its citizens at a much faster clip, will be politically explosive. A full vindication of Brexit would be the cherry on the pie. The collapse of the EU itself cannot be ruled out. The joint action on vaccines by the 27 member states, hailed as a big triumph for European solidarity only one month ago, could become its undoing in the coming few weeks.</p><p>Hence, for the EU getting its vaccine roll-out back on track as fast as possible is an existential stake. This is why it is so desperate and would go to any lengths at least to be seen doing all the possible. And this is what the UK might have miscalculated.</p><p><b>What has the UK government done?</b></p><p>By late 2020, the Johnson government had had a really bad pandemic: highest number of deaths per capita in Europe, a devastating third wave driven by a mutant variant of the virus, a track record made of numerous blunders and u-turns, Boris himself catching the virus and ending in intensive care, Dominic Cummings breaking lockdown rules by driving across the country with his family etc. The Prime Minister had lost much of his stardust from the 2019 elections and was regularly clubbed by the leader of the opposition at questions time in the House of Commons, Labour was riding high in the polls.</p><p>While the EU wasn't doing well itself, it still appeared to have a more deliberate approach and to keep its act together by e.g. coordinating among countries on restrictions to free movement or agreeing on a large economic recovery package funded through common debt. The comparison with Britain was not particularly flattering for the latter.</p><p>In this context, the UK adopted a high-risk strategy, betting it all on vaccines, including buying ample supplies without haggling on price, going for super-fast track emergency approval, accelerating the roll-out by ignoring the interval for the second jab prescribed by the producers. </p><p>For now, as of end January 2021, it seems to have paid off: the UK is by far the fastest vaccinator in the Western world and the pandemic wave is receding. In contrast, the EU is struggling with vaccination, is facing social unrest and is bracing for the coming wave of the pandemic, certainly the biggest so far.</p><p>But has there been foul play by the UK? This is a critical question in the context of the current row.</p><p>The honest answer is: we don't know, at least not yet. But there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest that something might be rotten, and not in Denmark this time.</p><p>When the former Belgian minister who is now EU Commissioner for Justice and consumers speaks of the UK having started a 'vaccine war', when the Croatian prime minister speaks of 'vaccine hijacking', when EU leaders barely contain their anger and put speedily in place the legal base for banning vaccine exports to the UK, one can be forgiven for thinking that political leaders might know more than has been in the public domain.</p><p>Putting the different bits and pieces that have transpired together, it seems to me quite plausible that the UK government has secretly secured preferential treatment from AZ to the detriment of the EU, possibly rather recently (not at the time of the initial contracts) and with an aim not only to secure sufficient supplies for the British, but also to sabotage vaccine roll-out in the EU. This is admittedly just speculation at this stage. But it would explain a lot of what's been happening - from Boris's secrecy over contracts and deliveries to AZ's boss defiant behaviour to the rage of the EU and of many member states.</p><p>But, you may ask, why would Boris do such a thing?</p><p><b>Vaccine politics and the link with Brexit</b></p><p>The premiership of Boris Johnson is closely tied to making Brexit a success. Not only was "get Brexit done!" the slogan with which he won the last elections, but his decision to support the leave campaign back in 2016 likely tipped the referendum result.</p><p>With all the talk about continued friendship and partnership between the EU and the UK, both parties are also competitors and have an existential stake in being seen as doing better than the other. For the UK brexiters and for the prime minister in particular, the promised 'sunny uplands' need to materialise to justify leaving the block. At the very least, the UK should be seen by their voters as doing better outside the EU than inside. The EU itself being perceived as a failure, or even collapsing altogether, would be the ultimate vindication of Brexit.</p><p>The EU, on the other hand, needs to justify its continued existence by demonstrating to its members the advantages of being part of the club. This necessarily means that an exiting country, like the UK, should not be able to benefit from the same advantages while dodging the costs and obligations of membership. And ideally the UK should not 'mightily prosper' outside the EU more than the EU itself, or else it might give second thoughts to other members.</p><p>By early January 2021, the situation was looking rather bleak for Boris. His last-minute trade deal with the EU, sold internally as an achievement of 'cakeism', was proving very disappointing in practice. People discovered that the newly introduced border frictions - due to the UK leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union - meant that it became very costly and cumbersome to sell or buy online to and from the EU (abruptly ending UK's role as the main European hub for business-to-consumer e-commerce), that countless business models based on seamless flows of goods had become unsustainable overnight, that one would even get their sandwich confiscated at the border. At the same time, the huge surge in cases in the pandemic's third wave was followed by a sharp increase in covid deaths. Home to a more contagious variant of the virus, Britain was cut off from other countries and branded 'plague island'. The demise of Donald Trump and the fading prospects for a quick trade deal with the US were further undermining the Brexit narrative. There was renewed talk of Scottish independence. And to top it all, the miserable weather in January brought recurrent floods and freezing to large areas of the UK, while vacationing in the Alps or in southern Europe was no longer an option.</p><p>Fast forward a couple of weeks and the tables seem to have completely turned. The EU's slow start on vaccination was gradually picking pace, but unexpectedly ran into trouble when supplies were reduced temporarily by Pfizer and received a brutal blow with AZ's announcement that it could only provide the EU with 40% of the vaccines contracted for the first quarter (while still delivering on schedule, two million vaccines a week, to the UK).</p><p>When last year the UK opted out of the EU's joint vaccine procurement action, this should have raised alarm bells in Brussels. More than a natural option for a departing ex-member (the UK had left de jure at the end of January 2020 and was in a standstill 'transition' period until end of the year), it signaled that the UK had decided to double down on its Brexit logic, together with its insistence to end the transition period on 31 December 2020 and enact its de facto exit from the EU in the middle of a pandemic, deal or no deal. Mixing the vaccine action with Brexit-related politics turned vaccines into a political issue. Which side does better on vaccines would become either a vindication, or a discredit for Brexit and its proponents.</p><p>The politics of the vaccines were on display early on. In December, when the UK was first to approve the Pfizer vaccine, this was hailed as a Brexit triumph. It allowed to start rolling out the EU-produced jabs in the UK, weeks ahead of EU countries - a moment of national pride that allowed the government to change the narrative. It is quite clear that Brexit proponents in the UK benefit politically from EU's troubles with the covid vaccines.</p><p><b>Has the EU threatened the Irish protocol?</b></p><p>There has been a lot of emotion in the media and political circles about the EU's initial announcement, quickly reversed, that it would trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol (part of UK's EU Withdrawal agreement) to ensure that the Irish border would not be used as a backdoor for vaccine exports to the UK.</p><p>To be sure, this was a blunder, especially as the announcement was apparently made without consulting Ireland beforehand. The fact that it was soon reversed doesn't cancel the damage - the British tabloids were quick to denounce EU's reckless endangering of peace in Northern Ireland and the hypocrisy of doing so after posing as an upholder of rules and having condemned the UK for considering to unilaterally override the protocol through its Internal Market act (abandoned in the meantime).</p><p>But the charge is disingenuous. Through its proposed Internal Market act, the UK was seeking to establish a legal reality contradictory with the Northern Ireland protocol, effectively cancelling it. By invoking Article 16 of the protocol, on the other hand, the EU was only using a built-in emergency stopgap. Technically perhaps the correct thing to do, but politically inept.</p><p><b>What can be done?</b></p><p>The current escalation between the UK and the EU with regard to vaccines is extremely toxic and dangerous. It has acquired a 'zero-sum' dynamic that needs to be urgently altered, if we are not to count the collateral damage of post-Brexit competition in human lives (covid casualties).</p><p>The EU and the UK will not easily become very friendly after the bad blood accumulated in recent years. But they need to work with each other because they have many common interests and geography is stubborn. </p><p>It is therefore essential to rein in the hotheads on both sides and come clean on vaccines and other medical supplies. No party should try to get an unfair advantage at the expense of the other. If there are supply shortages, the UK and the EU should share the burden and should work together to remedy them. And if there is good faith and transparency on both sides, there is no need for export bans.</p><p>But one person should go for the atmosphere to clear up: Pascal Soriot has become a liability for AstraZeneca and an irritant in the EU-UK relation.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-65700303620362232452020-03-30T15:29:00.003+02:002021-01-31T23:55:12.350+01:00A statistically sound way to count the death toll from covid-19 (EN)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Mr. Lemaitre lives in Brussels, Belgium. He is 70 and five years ago underwent surgery for lung cancer. In mid-February his carcinoma recurred and he was admitted to hospital. Subsequently his condition worsened and in the beginning of March he entered a coma. Less than a week later, his temperature spiked and he was tested for the novel coronavirus. By the time the result came back positive, Mr. Lemaitre had already passed away.<br />
<br />
Mr. Peeters lives alone in rural Flanders. His age is the same, 70, and he has a chronic heart condition. But he is in decent health otherwise and he makes sure to regularly visit his cardiologist. Good monitoring, a healthy diet and a quiet lifestyle could easily give him 10-15 more years of quality life, said his doctor. At the beginning of March Mr. Peeters had a couple of bad days, but then was better. He didn't worry too much, it had happened several times in the past and the doctor had adjusted his treatment in response. He would anyway see his doctor in two weeks for his regular appointment.<br />
As the days pass, Mr. Peeters begins to stress about the coronavirus epidemic. He knows he is in a vulnerable category, at his age and with his chronic heart disease, so he limits his contacts and spends most of the time indoors, watching the news. The epidemic is growing in his region, with more and more cases reported every day. He knows stressing is not good for his heart, but cannot help it. He has another bad day and he takes meticulous notes of all the symptoms, to tell his doctor when he sees him in a couple of days.<br />
Then one day and a half before his scheduled appointment, the government on TV announces a lockdown, aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. All non-essential outings are banned. All regular medical appointments are canceled. Mr. Peeters panics. During the night, he has a heart attack and by dawn is dead in his bed.<br />
<br />
While Mr. Lemaitre and Mr. Peeters both died at about the same time, only one of them died due to the coronavirus. Mr. Lemaitre was already on his deathbed when he contracted the virus; it might have accelerated his demise, but it certainly wasn't the primary cause. On the other hand, Mr. Peeters' death is obviously caused by the coronavirus pandemic, even if he might not even have been infected; indeed, were it not for the cancellation of his cardiology appointment and for the stress of the situation, chances are Mr. Peeters would be happily tending to his garden in the spring sun, and for years to come.<br />
<br />
Still, in the figures announced in the news bulletins, it's Mr. Lemaitre's death that is counted among the victims of the virus, and not that of Mr. Peeters.<br />
<br />
Both Mr. Lemaitre and Mr. Peeters are fictional characters, but you get the point. As a real life example, I could refer to the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-coronavirus-methanol-drink-cure-deaths-fake-a9429956.html" target="_blank">hundreds of people who died in Iran</a> after drinking methanol based on the false belief that it would protect them from the virus. Does the pandemic play a role in their deaths? Most certainly, but you will not find them counted among its victims. Also forgotten will be the lives lost due to the economic collapse provoked by the lockdown measures to stop the pandemic.<br />
The covid-19 statistics that so many of us follow daily, which make the media's frontpages and determine the policy responses of our governments, are flawed.<br />
Different countries count fatalities in different ways and test to various extents for the virus. We have no clue how many people are infected, how many recovered without ever being tested, and we only make guesses as to the death rate. Official or quasi-official estimates are multiples of the headline confirmed figures. We scratch our head at the widely diverging death rates in Italy (very high) and Germany (very low) - but we don't even know whether the data is comparable, given the differences in testing and in counting fatalities.<br />
For all the talk about the science's comeback, about evidence-driven policies, in this unprecedented crisis our leaders are to a large extent flying blind. And the stakes couldn't be higher. The measures being taken these days are historic: state of emergency, lockdowns, border closures, huge fiscal packages to keep the economy - and indeed the society - afloat. One would wish that the figures informing these decisions would be reliable, statistically sound.<br />
<br />
But is there any way to have accurate estimates of the death toll of the coronavirus?<br />
The answer is yes, and it was used before - but not yet in this crisis.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The key to meaningfully measure the death toll of the coronavirus, in a way that counts the case of Mr. Peeters (who died from a heart attack triggered by the pandemic) and of the hundreds of Iranians who died poisoned from fear of the virus, while leaving out Mr. Lemaitre who would have died anyway, is based on a simple principle: compare the number of people who died during the pandemic with the number of people who would have died during the same period if there was no pandemic, with all the other factors unchanged. The difference will then show the net toll of covid-19, counting all the additional deaths due directly or indirectly to the virus. <br />
<br />
And how can this be done?<br />
By comparing the number of people dead during the period in question with the "usual" number from the similar period in previous years, controlling for known variations due to other factors (these days for instance one would not include in the comparison fatalities due to road accidents or workplace accidents, which have declined significantly due to the lockdown).<br />
<br />
In summer 2003, much of Western Europe suffered an unprecedented heat wave. The <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicule_europ%C3%A9enne_d%27ao%C3%BBt_2003#En_France" target="_blank">most affected country was France</a> - not because it had the highest absolute temperatures (it didn't), but because it had the largest, and most sustained in time, deviation from the multi-annual average temperatures for the period. Its population wasn't prepared to cope with such conditions, especially many elderly people left alone in the cities, in apartments without air conditioning, while younger relatives went on holidays.<br />
<br />
As a result, it is estimated that during the first three weeks of August 2003 around 15,000 people in France died because of the heatwave. The estimate is based on calculating the "excess deaths" during that period compared with the same period in previous years (see <a href="http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sante.gouv.fr%2Fhtm%2Factu%2Fsurmort_canicule%2Frapport_complet.pdf" target="_blank">the study here</a>, in French).<br />
The immediate cause of death of course varies, all we know is that some 15,000 people would have not died were it not for the heat. In fact, for the most part we don't even know who these 15,000 are among all those who passed away during that period. But we know with a high degree of statistical certainty that they were close to 15,000.<br />
<br />
This method of calculation isn't really appropriate for limited, localised and more straightforward impacts, like those of smaller epidemics such as SARS (another coronavirus that made the headlines in 2002-2003). But it is by far the best possible method to measure the impact of large-scale phenomenons, which affect in many ways, directly and indirectly, a significant part of the population, for which we cannot even begin to measure at the micro-level every consequence. Like the 2003 heatwave in Western Europe. And like the global coronavirus pandemic that we are currently living through.<br />
<br />
To perform a similar calculation for covid-19 in Europe, one already has the month of February and soon will have the complete month of March to compare with the "normal" numbers of dead for these months. For more granular results, one could compare the numbers by age cohort - will probably not find much of a difference overall, but might detect a change in some countries (Italy, Spain) among the elderly. In any case, such a calculation would offer a far more accurate image of covid-19's actual death toll than any of the numbers making headlines these days.<br />
<br />
So why hasn't anyone done it yet?</div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-5046447438762906642020-03-04T18:30:00.000+01:002020-03-07T10:18:11.567+01:00Is Trump's foreign policy influenced by a TV series? (EN)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcNDIpwyPdRFhjdIpJWccG5HNt-M60XJmar1maOzw7HtRWDzhvgeObKfAHJEmkvcjEfBDRvXzXrAF6trd0T_77cgnaDC26MbQa-ZyJw7a3ahYNsuFvHM2Wy8FvMkwMoOg6SWLS1Y_z6_I/s1600/MV5BYjY2ODA0NjYtMzlkMi00ZjY5LThiNjUtNzZjYzgxNjc0MzQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ%2540%2540._V1_SY1000_CR0%252C0%252C666%252C1000_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="666" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcNDIpwyPdRFhjdIpJWccG5HNt-M60XJmar1maOzw7HtRWDzhvgeObKfAHJEmkvcjEfBDRvXzXrAF6trd0T_77cgnaDC26MbQa-ZyJw7a3ahYNsuFvHM2Wy8FvMkwMoOg6SWLS1Y_z6_I/s320/MV5BYjY2ODA0NjYtMzlkMi00ZjY5LThiNjUtNzZjYzgxNjc0MzQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ%2540%2540._V1_SY1000_CR0%252C0%252C666%252C1000_AL_.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I have often wandered what may be the reasoning behind President Trump's foreign policy decisions, as they don't seem to follow a consistent pattern. Some seem purely transactional, while others are wholly unilateral; some appear very short-sighted, others potentially far-reaching; some look reckless, immature or extremely biased, others considerably more balanced. I'm not saying at all that these come in equal proportions! In my book most of his actions in international affairs are short-sighted, reckless, immature and biased. But the proportion is not the question here.<br />
<br />
One can assume that, with his limited attention span, what counts most is who among his entourage gets his ear last before a decision is made - and the chaotic working methods and the frequent personnel changes at the White House might explain some of the inconsistencies. There were also reports that he gets easily triggered by certain <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/how-fox-and-friends-rewrites-trumps-reality" target="_blank">TV talk-shows</a>.<br />
This is quite unsettling, as it leaves it unclear what this president is exactly standing for, what is the common thread in his foreign policy and how easily he can be influenced from random sources. If America's moves on the world scene are erratic and unpredictable, for allies as for adversaries, the consequences can be very serious.<br />
<br />
But it's possible that Trump may have evolved to the next level: from being influenced by talk-shows, to being influenced by TV series.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I have been a fan of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1796960/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0" target="_blank">Homeland</a>, an espionage and political series currently running its 8th (and last) season on TV (seasons 1-7 are available on Netflix). It depicts mostly fictional, but somewhat plausible versions of recent (post-<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks" target="_blank">9/11</a>) history.<br />
<br />
Not only is Homeland good entertainment, but its particular blend of political fiction occasionally <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/feb/17/homeland-the-show-that-became-a-work-of-genius-after-you-stopped-watching" target="_blank">appears to somehow anticipate</a> actual events. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_(season_8)" target="_blank">Season 8</a>, which is showing now but was shot last year, is about an attempt by the US to make peace with the Taliban and eventually pull out from Afghanistan. Does it ring <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/world/asia/us-taliban-deal.html" target="_blank">any bell</a>?<br />
<br />
Plus, in both fiction and reality, one key obstacle to peace is the fate of Taliban prisoners. In the TV series, a public statement by the Afghan vice-President vowing to never release the Taliban prisoners (whom he calls terrorists) temporarily derails the negotiations, until he is forced (by the CIA) to walk back his statement. And, sure enough, the same issue <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/world/asia/US-taliban-deal-reaction.html" target="_blank">becomes a potential deal breaker</a> in real life.<br />
<br />
And now comes the creepy part...<br />
<br />
A few days ago, I was watching a press conference by President Trump, Vice-President Pence and their coordination team on the coronavirus outbreak. Have a look at it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uy3-aIlyIo" target="_blank">here</a>, the action starts at 17:00 minutes. I was watching it live without even thinking about Afghanistan, I was simply curious to see what they have to say about the new epidemic.<br />
But then Trump started the press conference not with its announced topic, but by referring to the agreement reached in Afghanistan. And as he was speaking, I couldn't repress a feeling that he was trying to channel President Ralph Warner, the Homeland character that shows courage and vision pursuing an improbable peace agreement with the Taliban.<br />
<br />
And at the 19:09 mark, <a href="https://youtu.be/6uy3-aIlyIo?t=1149" target="_blank">this happens</a>: Trump pays tribute to the Americans who have spent "blood and treasure" in Afghanistan. And he adds, after a moment's hesitation: "and treasury". <br />
This wording ("blood and treasure") clearly cannot be Trump's own, it's not only unusual (well, there is <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7712598/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3" target="_blank">another TV series</a> with that name, but that's about it), but he is visibly not at ease saying it - hence he finds it necessary to also refer to "treasury". The context is also somewhat odd, with reference to the war in Afghanistan. Not least, such language sounds too sophisticated compared to the usual Trump speak, of which that very same press conference is an otherwise perfect illustration.<br />
<br />
But those words made me jump immediately.<br />
Because in the 2nd episode of Homeland's season 8, shown a few days earlier on TV, the same language had appeared in a letter sent by the CIA man Saul Berenson to the Taliban commander Haissam Haqqani, with a peace / negotiation offer. It had already struck me as rather unusual, so it stuck in my mind and I immediately made the connection when hearing Trump later.<br />
The actual text of that letter <a href="https://ew.com/recap/homeland-season-1-episode-2/" target="_blank">is transcribed here</a> and includes the below fragment (my underline).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>"Now we fight as enemies using every weapon we have — drones, suicide bombers — to kill or maim families and children. We’re like two mad men, hands around each other’s throats, unable to let go, <u>spilling each other’s blood for treasure</u>. For 18 years. No one can win such a war." </i></div>
</div>
<br />
In view of the above, I may be forgiven if I have a very strong suspicion that President Trump is watching Homeland and getting inspiration from it. <br />
<br />
The upside is that we can hope to see more coherence in Trump's policies going forward. Indeed, being influenced by a TV series has to be better than being driven by a talk-show. Unlike the latter, a series develops a longer-term plot and is bound to maintain some coherence between episodes.<br />
<br />
The downside is that I discovered that I may have one thing in common with Trump: we both like Homeland.<br />
Still, I cannot help looking forward to the next episodes to find out what may happen in the future in real life Afghanistan.</div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-26070178873508225502013-10-26T11:29:00.000+02:002013-10-26T11:47:40.031+02:00Europe's anti-Roma racism (EN)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrUFPOKjGnMsdeF9c6urpjd0UJw68_FfVBxeLNp4JVMXtaV_VVAXd4Ej1WpQp_ENcKOsaGX3SOcm_ri2fjPH8e99tkmFfAnVV23d0aHCxmKRheTN2rRSPFUH-v3ZG9u4GVApgpG8WfO64/s1600/blond+angel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrUFPOKjGnMsdeF9c6urpjd0UJw68_FfVBxeLNp4JVMXtaV_VVAXd4Ej1WpQp_ENcKOsaGX3SOcm_ri2fjPH8e99tkmFfAnVV23d0aHCxmKRheTN2rRSPFUH-v3ZG9u4GVApgpG8WfO64/s320/blond+angel.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
Traditionally strongest in Central Europe (plenty of nasty examples from recent history in <a href="http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/09/roma-s03.html" target="_blank">Slovakia</a>, <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/neo-nazis-in-hungary-receive-life-sentences-for-roma-murder-spree-a-915163.html" target="_blank">Hungary</a>, <a href="http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3581" target="_blank">Romania</a>, <a href="http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/killing-time-lethal-force-anti-roma-racism" target="_blank">Czech Republic</a> etc.), the anti-Roma racism has rapidly spread in Western Europe since the EU enlargement. I pass on France's forced expulsion of Roma (EC Vice-president V. Reding <a href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/09/reding-slams-france-on-roma-expulsions/68855.aspx" target="_blank">said it all</a> when she compared it to anti-Jewish persecutions during WW II), to focus just on the recent case in Greece that sparked a new wave of hysteria across Europe.<br />
<br />
Greek authorities find a blonde girl ("the <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/19/uk-greece-girl-idUKBRE99I06620131019" target="_blank">blond angel</a>") in a Roma family, and suspect she may be abducted. DNA tests confirm that she is not the biological offspring of her so-called parents. While they offer a story of informal adoption, they are put in jail and much of Europe is frantically looking for the real parents ("she looks Scandinavian" is the dominant opinion). Ancestral myths of children abductions by the Roma are revived. In Ireland, a blonde girl <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/irish-police-remove-blonde-child-roma-family" target="_blank">is taken away by authorities</a> from her Roma family, only to be returned later when DNA tests confirm that she is indeed from that family (well, yes, there are blond Roma children occasionally, as can be easily checked in many Roma communities).<br />
The cases <a href="http://world.time.com/2013/10/22/another-blonde-girl-removed-from-roma-family/" target="_blank">multiply</a>, and note what crude racial profiling is sufficient to trigger police action:<br />
<i><span style="color: #ea9999;">"The police seized the girl after receiving a tip about a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child who looked nothing like her family, the Sunday World reports." </span></i><i><span style="color: #ea9999;"><br /></span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: #ea9999;"><br /></span></i>Eventually, the biological parents of the "blond angel" found in Greece are <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/blond-angel-parents-confirmed-as-bulgarian-roma-couple-1.2224891" target="_blank">identified in Bulgaria</a>, and confirmed by DNA tests. They are, well, dark-skinned Roma themselves; and they confirm the informal adoption story (true, the Roma are not so good with the paperwork).<br />
<br />
So what will happen now? Will the Greek Roma family be released from prison, with apologies and perhaps some compensation? Will they be allowed to keep the little girl whom they raised as their daughter?<br />
<br />
My guess is different:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
They may still be retained on other charges, like social assistance fraud (they declared more children to get undue state allocations) or some other (Bulgarian and Greek authorities seem intent on proving some illegality like child-selling, notwithstanding what the concerned Roma families say). Greece has an inefficient administration and a pervasive, long-standing problem with tax evasion and social assistance fraud, why not start serious enforcement with this Roma case? The girl is now in state care and might not be returned to her adoptive family.<br />
<br />
But something will definitely change: I bet she will no longer be called "the blond angel". <br />
She may be blonde, but she is a Roma after all - so no "angel".</div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-5918835079294179022013-03-17T22:31:00.000+01:002013-03-18T06:54:12.286+01:00A wake-up call (EN)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The shocking decision to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/business/global/facing-bailout-tax-cypriots-try-to-get-cash-out-of-banks.html?hp&_r=1&" target="_blank">impose a 'tax'</a> on bank depositors in Cyprus will only reveal its full consequences in the coming days and weeks. The signs so far are ominous; bank runs and social unrest in the coming period cannot be ruled out.<br />
<br />
But whatever happens, one thing is already clear: that the North/South, Centre/Periphery cleavage in the Eurozone and in the EU at large has become irreversible, a point of no return has been reached. It is no longer taboo to force periphery governments to bypass democracy, break their promises and even their countries' law, if the powerful creditors so desire. The existence of second-class countries in the EU, for long an unspoken reality, has been officially formalised. And, with it, the end of the EU as we once knew it.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the measure may be as <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/17/cyprus-bailout-welcome-to-another-great-depression/" target="_blank">stupid</a> as it is abusive. But even if it works, by some miracle and against the evidence of EU-imposed policies so far in its Southern rim, the harm of breaking the promise of a united Europe made of equal citizens is already done.<br />
<br />
Out of a sense of historical justice, I would be tempted to wish that countries who are now forcing Cyprus into this legalised theft of its citizens' savings would one day live through such an experience themselves. But no, this would be wrong in any circumstance, and two wrongs don't make a right. I don't wish any citizen of any country to face a situation of being robbed outright by his or her own government. As one who lived under a totalitarian regime, I know well the feeling of frustration and disempowerment that such arbitrariness can bring, and how big a blow it can be to citizenship and basic human dignity.<br />
<br />
For Romania, a periphery country itself and chronically treated as second-class within the EU - largely due to a corrupt, self-interested political class - this should be a last-chance wake-up call.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>There is a pressing urgency is to take all possible precautions to avoid getting in situations as humiliating as those faced these days by the bankrupt countries of the Eurozone. This objective should become the new national priority, one to unite all responsible individuals from all political camps. <br />
Though it may look uninspiring in comparison with the earlier grand aspirations of post-communist transition, those of democracy-building and Euro-Atlantic integration, at a closer look it appears just as vital and challenging. It's not about the kind of strident, nationalistic and anti-European statements that have lately become common currency in Romanian politics. On the contrary, it's about stepping up dramatically the country's European and international game in order to build-up, in time, prestige and influence and acquire sufficient respect to no longer be the usual suspect or the default country to blame for all kinds of problems (as was again recently the case with the horse meat scandal). But most of all, it's about transforming the country itself for the better. This requires diligent and honest work for the public interest, cleaning up domestic affairs, treating Romanian citizens at home as we would like them to be treated abroad. In short, a thorough re-shaping, a vastly ambitious agenda for a new generation of leaders, one that goes beyond politics to encompass society at large.<br />
Without it, we are in great danger. And - as the Eurozone's canibalisation of its weaker members shows - we are running out of time.<br />
<br />
If, in a crisis, Romania will find itself to be the weakest of the herd, God help us, because there will not be many friends around. </div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-8750943935797752942013-03-04T13:38:00.000+01:002013-03-04T13:44:12.522+01:00Dosarul Schengen - mize si incordari (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Subiectul aderarii la Acordul Schengen <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14333492-presedintia-delimiteaza-declaratiile-ministrului-corlatean-romania-isi-mentine-intregul-interes-pentru-aderarea-spatiul-schengen-cat-mai-curand.htm" target="_blank">incinge</a> din nou, in aceste zile, coabitarea politica damboviteana. Diferenta fata de precedentele esecuri pe aceeasi tema este schimbarea de roluri: daca in 2011 presedintele Basescu era cel care <a href="http://www.corectnews.com/politics/intern/basescu-nu-mai-vrea-sa-se-dea-bani-pentru-securizarea-frontierelor" target="_blank">propunea realocarea banilor</a> pentru securizarea frontierelor spre alte domenii si autoritatile <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-10172219-scandalul-schengen-lalele-firmele-olandeze-care-exporta-seminte-flori-romania-exprimat-ingrijorarea-ambasada-olandei.htm" target="_blank">se razboiau cu florile</a> olandeze, iar anul trecut pe vremea asta puterea portocalie <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/02/feriti-raza-de-actiune-basescu-iar-face.html" target="_blank">obstructiona Serbia</a> cu bataie pe Schengen, acum guvernul USL - sustinut de o majoritate zdrobitoare in parlament - <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14345283-ministrul-apararii-mircea-dusa-despre-schengen-romania-nu-trebuie-mai-stea-capul-plecat.htm" target="_blank">isi incordeaza muschii</a> in fata Occidentului, in timp ce <a href="http://www.ziare.com/emil-boc/primaria-cluj/boc-refuzul-germaniei-privind-schengen-este-un-nou-succes-marca-usl-1221927" target="_blank">basistii critica</a> prestatia puterii.<br />
<br />
In ambele ipostaze, avem de-a face cu acelasi simptom, chiar daca actorii au fost re-distribuiti: vorbim de slabiciunea pozitiei externe a Romaniei (un tratament similar aplicat, sa zicem, Poloniei sau Cehiei ar fi greu de imaginat), combinata cu incapacitatea cronica a clasei politice de a se abtine de la demagogie si de a actiona unitar si disciplinat in chestiuni care tin de interesul national. Totul, pe fondul unei deteriorari generale a climatului european in chestiunea liberei circulatii (si nu numai), despre care <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/search/label/Schengen" target="_blank">am scris deja</a> de mai multe ori.<br />
<br />
Ce ar fi, totusi, de facut? Si cum poate fi judecata <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14333788-ponta-ministrul-corlatean-vorbit-numele-guvernului-daca-schengen-amana-tema-nu-mai-prioritara.htm" target="_blank">pozitia guvernului Ponta</a>?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>In cautarea unei solutii, trebuie pornit de la interesul national al Romaniei - care trebuie inteles in sensul lui mai larg, dincolo de iritarea respingerii repetate in chestiunea Schengen.<br />
<br />
In primul rand - da, Romania are un interes sa adere la Acordul Schengen. Si, desi exista avantaje concrete ale acestui pas suplimentar in integrarea europeana (de exemplu, turistii sau oamenii de afaceri extra-europeni n-ar mai fi nevoiti sa ocoleasca Romania cand se afla in posesia unei vize Schengen; acoperirea unei portiuni mai mici de frontiera ar permite o gestionare mai buna a riscurilor si resurselor; simplificarea formalitatilor administrative pentru milioanele de romani care calatoresc anual in Europa), cel mai mare castig ar fi de ordin simbolic. Prin "intrarea in Schengen", Romania ar face un pas mare in a scutura imaginea de membru de mana a doua al UE - lucru important, mai ales in contextul prevazutei ridicari totale a restrictiilor de munca pentru romani si bulgari la sfarsitul acestui an, fata de care unele state membre (cam aceleasi) au vizibile retineri. Cand ai deja o reputatie proasta, nu e deloc de ajutor sa tot fii vazut asteptand pe la usi - se creeaza un cerc vicios in care imaginea negativa si realitatea excluderii se potenteaza reciproc.<br />
<br />
In al doilea rand, dincolo de scopul imediat, Romania are interesul de a nu decredibiliza si subrezi si mai mult constructia europeana, deja aflata intr-un impas major. UE sufera tot mai mult de pe urma abordarii meschine de catre politicienii din statele membre a intereselor proprii in context european. Tratatele isi pierd din forta cand respectarea lor devine optionala in functie de convenienta politica. Erodarea treptata a <em>acquis-</em>ului <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2011/09/structure-vs-entropy-and-eus-slow.html#more" target="_blank">este deja vizibila</a>. Ca o tara care si-a dorit de generatii sa fie ancorata ireversibil la lumea occidentala, Romania nu are nimic de castigat din esecul UE si din reaparitia liniilor de fractura pe continent.<br />
<br />
De aceea, abordarea romaneasca in chestiunea Schengen ar trebui sa indeplineasca urmatoarele criterii:<br />
<ul>
<li>sa mentina presiunea pentru atingerea obiectivului imediat - aderarea la Acordul Schengen <strong>(persistenta)</strong></li>
<li>sa nu propage sau sa amplifice imaginea unei tari de mana a doua, tinuta la usa <strong>(demnitate si discretie)</strong></li>
<li>sa nu submineze - iar, daca e posibil, chiar sa intareasca - procesul constructiei europene (<strong>atitudine constructiva).</strong></li>
</ul>
Ar fi de ajutor o gandire proaspata in aceasta problema. Cand doua regimuri succesive, de orientari politice diferite, se lovesc de obstacole de netrecut, o schimbare de tactica trebuie luata in considerare.<br />
In septembrie 2011 <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.be/2011/09/schengen-o-idee-constructiva-pentru.html" target="_blank">am propus o astfel de idee</a>: o desfiintare unilaterala de catre Romania si Bulgaria a granitei comune, ca prim pas spre Schengen. Inca nu este tarziu pentru o astfel de initiativa, care ar indeplini cu brio criteriile schitate mai sus si ar relansa spectaculos demersul de aderare pe baze noi, in spirit european.<br />
<br />
Cu privire la <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-14342055-titus-corlatean-noi-declaratii-despre-schengen-batem-pentru-obiectiv-important-romaniei-dar-demnitate-nu-asteptand-mana-intinsa.htm" target="_blank">pozitia actualului guvern</a>, admit ca ar putea fi preferabila unei escaladari a tensiunilor cu statele membre care nu sunt pregatite sa accepte Romania si Bulgaria. Salut mai ales mesajul conform caruia <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-14342055-titus-corlatean-noi-declaratii-despre-schengen-batem-pentru-obiectiv-important-romaniei-dar-demnitate-nu-asteptand-mana-intinsa.htm" target="_blank">Romania nu este interesata "sa ia parte la un proces lipsit de credibilitate"</a> - cred ca aceasta este nota justa si ar trebui sa devina principalul punct de pozitie al guvernului.<br />
Dar, pentru ca aceasta abordare sa aiba o sansa, ar trebui sa existe o mai mare disciplina a mesajului (sunt, totusi, nuante importante intre declaratiile succesive ale diferitilor oficiali romani din ultimele zile, chiar fara a pune la socoteala nota discordanta a presedintiei) si ar trebui evitate iesirile stridente de tipul <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14345283-ministrul-apararii-mircea-dusa-despre-schengen-romania-nu-trebuie-mai-stea-capul-plecat.htm" target="_blank">celei a ministrului Stroe</a> (o insulta contraproductiva, care-i va aduce poate cateva voturi in plus acasa, dar nu va ajuta nici macar cu un milimetru cauza Romaniei, dimpotriva). A pune Germania in situatia de a-si justifica refuzul la Consiliul Justitie si Afaceri Interne ar putea fi o idee buna, a arunca cu invective este in mod clar o tampenie.<br />
<br />
In plus, ar trebui ca taberele politice sa cada de acord in spiritul unei actiuni unitare in interes national. Fiecare dintre ele are o parte din vina pentru situatia in care s-a ajuns: Basescu si ai lui au gestionat prost dosarul cat au avut puterea, pana in primavara lui 2012; iar USL are pe constiinta <em>blitz-krieg</em>-ul dezastruos al <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.be/2012/07/soarta-romaniei-la-ruleta.html" target="_blank">suspendarii presedintelui</a> din vara lui 2012, care a fragilizat seminificativ atat ordinea de drept, cat si pozitia si credibilitatea externe ale tarii, cu consecinte care se developeaza in timp.<br />
<br />
Nici una dintre taberele politice nu are constiinta curata in aceasta chestiune. Ar trebui sa-si calce pe trufia gaunoasa si peste artagul caracteristic (ati observat cat de certareti sunt politicienii nostri, cum umbla mai mereu cu capsa pusa?) si sa lucreze impreuna pentru interesul national. Basistii ar trebui sa inceteze acuzele isterice la adresa actualei puteri ca este pe cale sa ne scoata din UE si sa ne vanda Rusiei. Iar USL ar trebui sa-si domoleasca aroganta rau-prevestitoare a ultra-majoritatii. Sigur, puterea actuala are in spate un vot masiv, iar basistii au fost sanctionati la urne de catre romani si nu mai reprezinta o cantitate semnificativa in politica interna; dar intr-un dosar delicat si dificil ca acesta, opozitia trebuie cooptata, indiferent de raportul momentan de forte.<br />
<br />
Pana la urma, istoria va judeca orice demers politic in functie de rezultatul sau. <br />
Pana nu incep sa-si faca treaba cu mai multa seriozitate si inteligenta si cu mai putina zarva inutila, politicienii nostri nu prea au sanse la o judecata pozitiva a istoriei.</div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-35197281415790544542013-01-13T23:59:00.000+01:002013-01-13T23:59:30.929+01:00"DeBasificarea justitiei"? Nu, multumesc. (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In contextul noului <a href="http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/incetati-lupta-pe-justitie-289570.html" target="_blank">asalt politic</a> asupra Justitiei, se vorbeste despre "<a href="http://radu-tudor.ro/debasificarea-justitiei/" target="_blank">debasificarea</a>" ei, in sensul eliminarii unor sustinatori ai lui Basescu din conducerea institutiilor-cheie: <a href="http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiliul_Superior_al_Magistraturii_%28Rom%C3%A2nia%29" target="_blank">CSM</a>, <a href="http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchetul_de_pe_l%C3%A2ng%C4%83_%C3%8Enalta_Curte_de_Casa%C8%9Bie_%C8%99i_Justi%C8%9Bie" target="_blank">Parchetul General</a>, <a href="http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direc%C8%9Bia_Na%C8%9Bional%C4%83_Anticorup%C8%9Bie" target="_blank">DNA</a>.<br />
<br />
Am fost si raman un critic acerb al lui Basescu, al sistemului de putere pe care l-a construit in ultimii ani, al felului in care si-a impus controlul asupra multor institutii ale statului, sau le-a subminat si marginalizat pe cele pe care nu le-a putut controla cu usurinta. Accept si premisa - destul de usor de sustinut cu argumente - ca influenta basista persista in unele structuri, inclusiv in Justitie. Este greu de ignorat cum, la apogeul confruntarilor politice din 2012, Parchetul a parut sa-si ia instructiunile din unele declaratii publice venite de la Basescu sau de la Monica Macovei.<br />
<br />
Daca chestiunea "debasificarii Justitiei" s-ar fi pus anul trecut, n-as fi avut rezerve in a o sustine.<br />
Sa nu uitam, dupa semi-esecul referendumului de demitere a lui Basescu (vot coplesitor pentru demitere, dar referendum nevalidat), alternanta democratica la putere a fost in real pericol. Jocul de poker al USL-ului cu demiterea presedintelui (despre care <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/07/soarta-romaniei-la-ruleta.html" target="_blank">mi-am exprimat parerea</a> la momentul respectiv) a dat apa la moara basistilor, dandu-le ocazia sa pozeze in - culmea ironiei! - aparatori ai statului de drept. Tabara basista, pentru un timp, a parut sa-si recapete partial suflul politic. Pana acolo incat Basescu a gasit tupeul sa declare ca este pregatit sa ignore inca o data votul electoratului la alegerile parlamentare, <a href="http://www.gandul.info/politica/basescu-simt-dispret-cand-mi-se-cere-sa-numesc-un-premier-care-m-a-suspendat-o-broscuta-mai-merge-dar-un-porc-e-greu-de-inghitit-10353769" target="_blank">anuntand ca va refuza sa nominalizeze candidatul aliantei castigatoare</a> la postul de prim-ministru.<br />
<br />
Intr-un astfel de context, cu un Basescu hotarat sa se agate de putere chiar in lipsa oricarei legitimitati populare, amenintand fatis cu repetarea manevrelor anti-constitutionale din toamna lui 2009 (cand a impiedicat o majoritate parlamentara legitima sa acceada la guvernare) si in mod evident dispus sa faca uz de influenta subterana pe care o putea exercita asupra institutiilor de stat (vorbim nu doar de 'activarea' unor sustinatori infitrati politic in diferitele institutii, ci si, intre altele, de santajul unor oameni vulnerabili cu dosare furnizate de serviciile secrete - formula bine rodata de Basescu in ultimii ani), o operatiune de curatire a Justitiei de pionii otraviti care raspundeau la ordinele Cotrocenilor putea fi o idee buna. Era vorba, in fond, de o chestiune de viata si de moarte pentru democratia romaneasca - salvarea principiului ca ajungerea la putere si pastrarea puterii se decid prin votul popular la alegeri. Pentru un timp in 2012, masinaria puterii basiste a parut capabila sa rastoarne chiar acest element fundamental al libertatii noastre de dupa 1989 (asa cum deja o facuse, poate nu chiar atat de flagrant, in 2009). Scenariul puterii basiste rezistand impotriva votului popular cu ajutorul serviciilor secrete si al Justitiei infiltrate politic era intr-adevar unul de cosmar, pentru evitarea caruia "debasificarea Justitiei" putea fi un raspuns. Desigur, ramanea de vazut ce ar fi putut face USL-ul concret, fara a forta regulile jocului ca la tentativa esuata de a-l demite pe Basescu.<br />
<br />
Dar ce inseamna "debasificarea Justitiei" acum, in 2013?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Situatia politica este radical schimbata. La alegerile din 9 decembrie, ajutata atat de votul masiv anti-Basescu, cat si de sistemul electoral, USL a obtinut o majoritate coplesitoare in Parlament, ceea ce l-a privat pe Basescu de masa de manevra de care ar fi avut nevoie pentru a incerca o rasturnare. Intelegand ca a se opune acestei realitati ar fi fost sinucigas (si primind semnale din exterior ca nu i se va permite sa sara peste cal), presedintele si-a calcat cuvantul si l-a desemnat din nou pe Victor Ponta premier. Cu o baza de putere mai solida decat niciodata, USL s-a instapanit pe toate parghiile guvernarii, asezandu-si stabil puterea la toate nivelurile executive, iar Ponta pare chiar sa fi gasit un <i>modus vivendi</i> (ce-i drept, precar) cu Basescu.<br />
Este evident, puterea lui Basescu a apus: mai poate crea, cel mult, cate o diversiune pe ici-colo, dar capacitatea lui de a afecta viata de zi cu zi a Romaniei este definitiv limitata.<br />
<br />
Pe de alta parte, USL nu da nici un semn ca, odata ajunsa la putere, s-ar comporta esential diferit fata de basisti. Demonstreaza aceeasi tendinta de acaparare totala a puterii si o apetenta similara pentru abuzul politic. Din experienta suspendarii esuate a lui Basescu din 2012, se pare ca singura lectie pe care a invatat-o USL este ca trebuie sa-si calculeze pasii un pic mai atent si sa nu uite sa dea din cand in cand semnale linistitoare spre Bruxelles; brutalitatea asaltului din vara anului trecut a lasat locul unui demers ceva mai subtil, dar cu atat mai eficient.<br />
<br />
Si atunci, care este problema USL-ului cu Justitia acum?<br />
Nu vad cum ar mai putea argumenta cineva ca Justitia, asa "basificata" cum o fi, poate impiedica USL-ul sa guverneze tara dupa cum crede de cuviinta, punandu-si in practica toate ideile si planurile marete spre binele romanilor.<br />
Ce poate face Justitia - si chiar o face, inca - este sa mai incomodeze, pe ici-pe colo, pe cate vreun "greucean" USL-ist: un Voiculescu, un Becali s.a.m.d. Iar doctrina "debasificarii" seamana din ce in ce mai mult cu o tentativa de a forta alinierea Justitiei 100% la agenda noii puteri. Basistii au avut nevoie de vreo doi ani ca sa supuna politic Justitia si institutiile de arbitraj (exemplul <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/06/romania-cucerita-ro.html" target="_blank">Curtii Constitutionale</a>), USL-istii vor sa rezolve problema mai rapid. Odata "rezolvat" CSM-ul, intreaga presiune se va muta pe ANI si pe Curtea Constitutionala, iar 'antenele' lui Voiculescu isi vor ajusta tirul. In scurt timp, le vor fi "debasificat" pe toate si vor putea sa faca absolut ce vor, fara nici o grija. Nu-i asa ca suna bine si ca avem incredere totala in ei? <br />
<br />
De aceea, din punctul de vedere al unui cetatean cu incredere limitata in politicieni (din pacate, pe baza experientei) si interesat de insanatosirea democratic-institutionala a sistemului de guvernare din Romania, prefer sa mai tinem, macar o vreme, Justitia "basificata", sa nu se simta Ponta si ai lui chiar prea confortabil. Pentru ca i-am mai vazut la largul lor, fara alte constrangeri decat ale propriei constiinte, si nu mi-a placut ce-am vazut.<br />
<br />
In situatia in care a ajuns democratia romaneasca, cu coastele rupte, cu ochii invinetiti si tarandu-si un picior, nu prea au mai ramas alegeri ideale de facut, suntem condamnati sa ne orientam mai mereu spre raul mai mic. Or, acum, la inceputul lui 2013, in situatia politica in care ne gasim, Justitia "basificata" mi se pare un risc mai usor controlabil decat puterea fara oprelisti a USL. </div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-11580672280317475452013-01-07T11:04:00.001+01:002013-01-14T00:01:24.980+01:002012: un bilant (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Anul care a trecut cred ca va ramane in istoria democratiei romanesti ca anul unei necesare schimbari de putere, dar si al zguduirii din temelii a subredei ordini institutionale a Romaniei post-comuniste. In 2013, urgenta ar trebui sa fie reconstructia solida si credibila a institutiilor democratice afectate de criza politica din ultimii ani, in particular de puseul din vara anului trecut. Fara o astfel de reconstructie, s-ar putea sa nu mai ramana nimic in picioare la urmatoarea <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/07/retragerea-apelor-ro.html" target="_blank">viitura</a> a vandalismului politic. Din pacate, nu vom putea conta pe clasa noastra politica pentru asta - ca de obicei, pare sa aiba cu totul alte prioritati.<br />
<br />
Mai pe larg:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Din 13 octombrie 2009, cand guvernul lui Emil Boc a fost demis prin votul de neincredere al Parlamentului, Romania a fost privata de un guvern democratic legitim. Prin manevre dincolo de limita Constitutiei si a practicii democratice, presedintele Basescu <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2009/10/basescu-castiga-romania-pierde-ro.html" target="_blank">a impiedicat</a> o majoritate parlamentara clar constituita sa dea tarii un guvern legitim (refuzand sa ia act de sustinerea majoritatii parlamentare - in fapt, a intregului Parlament cu exceptia reprezentantilor PDL - pentru Klaus Johannis ca premier) si a fortat pastrarea la putere a PDL, ulterior <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/02/fraudarea-alegerilor-ro.html" target="_blank">masluind compozitia politica</a> a Legislativului. Acest fapt nu a avut precedent in istoria de dupa 1989, desi aceasta a fost plina de momente critice (sa ne amintim de violentele de strada si de mineriadele repetate care au pus in pericol de moarte ordinea democratica - ultima data tocmai in 1999); din acest punct de vedere, pastrarea la guvernare a PDL, in toamna lui 2009, in ciuda opozitiei Parlamentului exprimata prin vot, a constituit un moment de ruptura in procesul democratic. Din acel moment a inceput declinul accelerat al ordinii democratice in Romania, pe care l-am comentat pe larg pe acest blog.<br />
<br />
In contrapartida, PDL s-a manifestat ca instrument docil al puterii personale a lui Basescu, incredintandu-i fatis principalele decizii ale guvernarii si reducand la derizoriu rolul unor institutii cheie pentru echilibrul puterii intr-un sistem democratic - guvernul, Parlamentul, Justitia.<br />
<br />
In 2010 si 2011, in contextul crizei economice mondiale, regimul basist a pus in practica masuri de austeritate extrem de dure, pentru care nu a avut niciodata un mandat democratic. Dincolo de efectele crizei, amplificate de costurile sociale ale masurilor anti-populare impuse de Basescu si executate intocmai de guvernul PDL (mai mult despre "performantele" basiste in gestionarea crizei economice si comparatia cu alte tari din regiune, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2011/05/succesuri-ro.html" target="_blank">aici</a>), Romania a suferit un <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/12/starea-democratiei-romanesti-ro.html" target="_blank">net regres democratic</a> si institutional.<br />
(Daca mai era nevoie sa ni se explice inca o data ce inteleg basistii prin "<a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/03/opriti-reforma-statului-vreau-sa-cobor.html" target="_blank">reforma statului</a>", cu care s-au impaunat atata timp, o face foarte bine <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-13939716-cadoul-grecesc-presedintelui-basescu.htm" target="_blank">unul dintre ei</a> in contextul disputei curente privind numirea procurorilor-sefi. Pe scurt, regulile sunt bune doar cand le convin lor; iar asta nu e dubla masura, ci "pragmatism". Curat stat de drept! De prisos sa explic de ce oameni cu astfel de optica nu vor putea vreodata sa sustina constructia institutionala a democratiei in Romania.) <br />
<br />
O schimbare de putere era absolut necesara pentru a frana deriva autoritara si a restabili cat de cat legitimitatea democratica a guvernarii. Si ea s-a produs, in urma demiterii de catre Parlament a guvernului basist, urmata de alegerile locale si de cele parlamentare, care au produs rezultate dincolo de orice dubiu - in primul rand prin respingerea masiva a fortelor politice afiliate lui Basescu.<br />
<br />
Din pacate, insa, istoria nu se opreste aici. Felul in care USL a gestionat schimbarea de putere - si in special episodul din vara al suspendarii esuate a presedintelui - a dat inca o lovitura grava, aproape mortala, ordinii democratice deja subminate de regimul basist. Fara a avea rabdarea si priceperea unei preluari graduale, decente si organizate a puterii, USL a raspuns disproportionat provocarilor lui Basescu si a lansat un <i>blitzkrieg</i> pentru acapararea totala a puterii, cu o ferocitate care a reusit sa eclipseze abuzurile (ele insele strigatoare la cer) ale regimului precedent si a ingrozit partenerii externi ai Romaniei. Incercarile de a schimba din mers regulile validarii referendumului, jocul post-factum de-a "mini-recensamantul", presiunile asupra institutiilor de arbitraj in preajma deciziilor importante, logica primitiva, pre-democratica de tip "invingatorul ia totul" etalata de noua putere USL-ista sunt fapte reale, nu inventii ale propagandei ostile atribuita PDL-ului si prietenilor sai externi. Faptul ca, cu democratia romaneasca pe buza prapastiei, Ponta si Antonescu, sub enorme presiuni externe, au facut pasul inapoi, nu anuleaza vina lor in decredibilizarea ordinii democratice si nici nu ofera vreo garantie de buna-credinta din partea lor.<br />
Desigur, Basescu si PDL-ul sunt ultimii care se pot pretinde aparatori ai institutiilor independente si ai statului de drept, cunoscute fiind abuzurile lor din 2009-2011, despre care am scris de sute de ori pe blog; dar conduita din vara a USL-ului a reusit la un moment dat sa dea apa la moara chiar si acestei pretentii neverosimile. Intr-o rasucire cvasi-orwelliana a intelesurilor, au ajuns basistii sa joace rolul de aparatori ai independentei justitiei si ai institutiilor statului in fata abuzului politic - doar pentru ca USL-ul a preluat cu entuziasm rolul vandalilor politici pe care i-au inlocuit la putere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/08/ccr-si-atins-limitele-solutia-trebuie.html" target="_blank">Scriam</a>, in timpul crizei politice din vara trecuta, ca institutiile independente, aflate sub mare presiune si adanc infiltrate politic, nu mai sunt in masura sa-si indeplineasca rolul de arbitru si ca este indispensabila o intelegere politica (fara ca asta sa insemne ca deciziile lor - asa cum sunt - nu trebuie respectate, pentru ca alternativa este haosul total). Pana la urma, <a href="http://www.politicaromaneasca.ro/pactul_de_coabitare_basescu_ponta_este_public_vezi_documentul-12644" target="_blank">un fel de intelegere </a>s-a produs in ceasul al 12-lea, dar departe de ceea ce ar fi fost necesar. In stilul politicienilor nostri, totul s-a facut intr-o forma improvizata si netransparenta, ca raspuns la presiuni externe. Documentul a fost agreat in secret si publicat in Romania abia dupa ce fusese aratat strainatatii. In plus, continutul <a href="http://www.politicaromaneasca.ro/pactul_de_coabitare_basescu_ponta_este_public_vezi_documentul-12644" target="_blank">documentului</a> se afla intr-un registru cu totul minor din punctul de vedere al necesarei reconstructii a ordinii democratice de drept: se vorbeste mai degraba de demarcarea puterii fiecaruia si de eticheta relatiilor presedinte-premier (inteleg ca Ponta s-a simtit ofensat de comparatiile din regnul animal cu care l-a gratulat Basescu, dar chiar era asta un lucru pentru care sa se semneze un acord scris?). In schimb, nu contine mai nimic despre temele importante pentru viitorul democratiei si statului de drept in Romania. O dovada este si ca s-a ajuns la un nou blocaj politic, legat de numirea procurorilor sefi, la nici o luna de la asa-zisul "<a href="http://jurnalul.ro/stiri/politica/raspuns-de-la-schultz-acord-de-coabitare-basescu-ponta-631791.html" target="_blank">acord de coabitare</a>".<br />
Acest acord este mai mult decat nimic, dar ofera o baza extrem de precara pentru a putea construi ceva.<br />
<br />
Or, de construit este mare nevoie in 2013. In crizele politice ale anului trecut, institutiile democratice - atat cele politice, cat si cele aflate nominal deasupra razboiului politic - au pierdut putinul capital de credibilitate pe care il mai aveau. S-a dovedit ca sistemul democratiei romanesti se poate gripa foarte usor si are mari probleme in a gestiona conflictele politice. Cand principiile democratiei si ale statului de drept ajung sa fie fluturate din parti opuse ale baricadei, este clar ca, indiferent cine castiga razboiul politic, cetatenii sunt cei care pierd.<br />
Ca sa fie clar: nu exista legitimitate democratica in afara respectarii cadrului legal si institutional; cum nici legea si institutiile nu pot merge impotriva vointei populare. Rolul politicienilor intr-un sistem democratic reprezentativ este de a pastra in echilibru acest binom al democratiei si legii. Daca abdica de la aceasta datorie fundamentala nu mai sunt nici democrati, nici aparatori ai statului de drept, oricat s-ar bate cu pumnul in piept. Sunt doar vandali politici.<br />
<br />
Si ajung acum la concluzia acestei postari:<br />
<br />
Pe cat de necesara este reconstructia democratica a Romaniei, pe atat de putin putem conta pe actuala clasa conducatoare sa conduca acest proces.<br />
Anul 2012 a fost si unul al <b>pierderii iluziilor </b>(pentru cine le-a avut): ambele tabere politice si-au dovedit cu prisosinta capacitatea de abuz, dispretul pentru reguli (cand nu le sunt convenabile), ingustimea intereselor si inapetenta de a lucra pe termen lung pentru binele public. Cred ca prezumptia de buna-credinta acordata politicienilor, oricare ar fi ei, este de acum o naivitate riscanta.<br />
<br />
Mai mult decat atat, multi dintre actorii (in principiu) non-politici si-au pierdut credibilitatea prin partizanat strident - si ma refer aici la institutiile zis-independente, mass-media, o buna parte a societatii civile si liderilor de opinie.<br />
<br />
Este nevoie de o noua Constitutie si de refondarea pe baze sanatoase a multor institutii erodate profund in razboiul politic din ultimii ani, dar, asa cum <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/03/impotriva-schimbarii-constitutiei-ro.html" target="_blank">scriam</a> inca din 2010, un astfel de lucru delicat nu se poate face in toiul razboiului politic, ca miza a lui. E nevoie de un minim consens, e nevoie de transparenta, de dialog cu facilitatori credibili (nu in solda uneia sau alteia dintre taberele politice), e nevoie, pe scurt, de <i>spatiu public</i>, care a devenit ceva extrem de rar in Romania de azi. Marea problema este ca suntem in criza acuta de actori credibili, non-partizani, care sa faciliteze dialogul si consensul pentru binele comun.<br />
<br />
De aceea, putinii care au mai ramas ar trebui sa-si ia inima in dinti si sa faca un pas inainte, implicandu-se in procesul politic la un nivel diferit de al politicii partizane, chiar daca meseria lor de baza e alta (de exemplu, jurnalismul sportiv: <a href="http://www.tolo.ro/" target="_blank">Tolontan</a> e un ziarist cu credibilitate care poate face chiar mai mult in zona politica decat a facut pana acum). E bine si ca incercam sa <a href="http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/liderii-anului-2012-288921.html" target="_blank">inventariem liderii</a> autentici - nu dintre cei care ne sunt aratati tot timpul la televizor. Romania are nevoie de mobilizare civica dincolo de zgomotul tot mai diversionist si isteric al politicii.<br />
<br />
In ce priveste acest blog, isi va continua consecvent pozitia ne-partizana politic, dedicata consolidarii ordinii democratice si a statului de drept in Romania.<br />
<br />
Cele mai bune urari pentru 2013 cititorilor!<br />
<br /></div>
Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-7474619352872340092012-08-03T11:50:00.001+02:002012-08-03T11:50:48.638+02:00CCR si-a atins limitele, solutia trebuie sa fie politica (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Decizia Curtii Constitutionale (CCR) de <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-12936366-ccr-reia-joi-dezbaterile-privind-referendumul-din-29-iulie.htm">a amana cu mai mult de o luna</a> verdictul privind validarea referendumului pentru demiterea presedintelui Romaniei, dincolo de motivele tehnice invocate (nevoia de verificare a listelor electorale), semnaleaza faptul ca institutiile statului nu pot fi folosite la infinit pentru rezolvarea conflictelor politice.<br />
<br />
Clasa politica este responsabila sa creeze solutii politice pentru problemele tarii. La noi, dimpotriva, de ani de zile clasa politica nu creeaza solutii, ci creeaza ea insasi probleme, pe care apoi se asteapta sa le rezolve altii: justitia, administratia, CCR, Europa, electoratul s.a.m.d. In loc sa creeze optiuni, politicienii nostri creeaza incontinuu blocaje. In loc sa intareasca institutiile statului capabile sa arbitreze in astfel de situatii, ei le submineaza si le antreneaza in lupta lor politica.<br />
Situatia nu dateaza din iulie 2012 - pentru reamintire, vedeti un exemplu din multele posibile <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.ro/2010/05/atentie-la-provocari-ro.html">aici</a> (din mai 2010): este vorba de acelasi tip de fundatura prin griparea mecanismelor legale si institutionale de rezolvare a conflictului politic.Ce este nou de data aceasta este ca ambele tabere politice s-au dovedit la fel de incapabile de a produce solutii si la fel de dispuse sa tarasca tara, fara mila si discernamant, in rafuielile lor.<br />
<br />
Este iluzoriu sa mai asteptam acum, dupa ani de "fragezire" politica a institutiilor statului, ca institutiile "independente" sa rezolve razboiul politic. Orice ar face ele, nici nu mai au - dupa ce au suferit asalturi politice repetate - credibilitatea si prestanta de a da solutii definitve si indiscutabile, si nici nu au garantia ca verdictele lor vor fi acceptate de ambele tabere politice. Stiu, este foarte dureros si grav ceea ce spun, dar sunt trei ani de cand - printre destui altii - atrag constant atentia asupra acestui pericol, lucrurile au ajuns deja foarte departe.<br />
<br />
Pur si simplu, politicienii nu mai respecta institutiile statului si nu mai recunosc arbitrajul lor. Este simptomatic cum justitia e atacata permanent dintr-o parte sau alta, in functie de cazul zilei (in timp ce fiecare dintre taberele politice incearca s-o controleze), cum serviciile speciale au devenit subiect de dispute teritoriale intre fortele politice, cum CCR - departe de a fi ea insasi apolitica - este atacata si pusa sub presiune cand de USL-isti, cand de basisti de la caz la caz.<br />
<br />
In aceste conditii, pretentiile politicienilor ca institutiile statului sa faca curat acolo unde ei au creat o enorma mizerie sunt cel putin ipocrite. In realitate, avand exercitiul incalecarii politice a institutiilor, nici una dintre taberele politice nu este dispusa sa accepte decat deciziile care ii sunt convenabile.<br />
<br />
De aceea, este iluzoriu sa ne asteptam la o rezolvare "tehnica" a actualei dispute. <i>Solutia la razboiul politic nu poate fi decat tot politica.</i> Altfel, vom continua sa vedem cum USL-istii si basistii se ameninta reciproc cu puscaria si merg pana in panzele albe intr-un razboi total, pe viata si pe moarte, in care eventualele decizii nefavorabile ale institutiilor statului sunt vazute doar ca obstacole care trebuie depasite.<br />
<br />
<i>Amanarea verdictului CCR asupra referendumului ar trebui, de aceea, vazuta ca o oportunitate, poate ultima, oferita politicienilor de a gasi o solutie politica pentru iesirea din criza actuala.</i> Orice va decide CCR pe 12 septembrie, este de asteptat ca una sau alta dintre tabere sa conteste, rezultatul fiind o si mai accentuata decredibilizare a democratiei in Romania, a capacitatii acestei tari de a se autoguverna. Ragazul de sase saptamani ar trebui folosit nu doar pentru verificarea listelor electorale de catre institutiile publice abilitate, ci si pentru pregatirea unor solutii politice in diferitele scenarii posibile dupa 12 septembrie; altfel, vom ajunge de unde am plecat si oricine ramane la putere va avea o grava problema de credibilitate si legitimitate.<br />
<br />
Pentru ca o solutie politica sa fie posibila, sunt cateva conditii de baza:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
In primul rand, politicienii trebuie sa recunoasca situatia de blocaj in care au adus tara, sa abandoneze iluzia unei solutii tehnice (in timp ce ei se razboiesc pentru controlul politic al institutiilor abilitate sa produca respectivele solutii) si pretentiile de "castigatori" absoluti ai conflictului. USL ar trebui sa recunoasca esecul strategiei <i>fast-track</i> de demitere a lui Basescu, iar presedintele suspendat ar trebui sa inceteze a-si mai proclama victoria intr-un referendum in care aproape 90% dintre votanti i-au fost impotriva.<br />
<br />
In al doilea rand, cele doua tabere ar trebui sa-si ofere una alteia portite de iesire. Nimeni nu poate ceda cand jocul se poarta pe principiul "care pe care", "totul sau nimic". Ar trebui sa inceteze amenintarile reciproce cu anchetele penale si puscaria, basistii ar trebui sa abandoneze retorica "loviturii de stat", USL-istii ar trebui sa o lase mai moale cu refuzul oricarui compromis si retorica de genul "unul dintre noi trebuie sa dispara". Cat timp retorica radicala persista, nu poate exista teren de negociere a unei solutii.<br />
<br />
In al treilea rand, personalizarea la extrem a conflictului ar trebui atenuata. Ponta, Antonescu, Basescu apar prea mult, este clar ca intre ei nu mai poate exista compromis. Ar trebui sa faca un pas inapoi si sa lase personalitati mai moderate si pragmatice din partidele lor sa negocieze posibile scenarii de iesire din criza. De exemplu, in locul trio-ului de mai sus ar putea negocia echipe conduse de, sa zicem, Hrebenciuc, Tariceanu si Blaga - nu-i asa ca lucrurile ar suna un pic altfel?<br />
<br />
Nu in ultimul rand, ar trebui identificate solutiile politice posibile, pentru ca ele exista, dar asta este posibil numai daca se poate discuta si negocia.<br />
De exemplu, recunoscand ca si-a pierdut sprijinul popular, Basescu ar putea iesi din scena cu fruntea sus prin demisie. In schimb, USL-ul ar trebui sa-i permita o iesire demna (sa-l lase pe el sa-si dezvolte retorica pe care o considera adecvata - de exemplu, ca isi asuma costurile reformelor si perioadei de criza economica) si sa ofere la schimb garantii ferme ca nu va persista in abuzuri politice de tipul celor perpetrate in ultimele doua luni; asta inseamna, de exemplu, asigurarea reprezentarii PDL in consiliul de administratie al TVR, echilibrarea politica a altor institutii care au fost acaparate total de USL sub pretextul "depolitizarii", prezervarea unor institutii ca DNA si ANI - eventual cu pastrarea sefilor actuali (care sunt departe de a fi ideali, dar ar putea fi de preferat eventualilor inlocuitori in conditiile actuale).<br />
Un alt scenariu ar fi ca USL sa tolereze revenirea lui Basescu la Cotroceni pentru inca cateva luni, in schimbul unor garantii ferme ca nu va mai crea diversiuni prin serviciile secrete, ca nu va mai folosi anti-coruptia in scop politic, ca va recunoaste rezultatul alegerilor parlamentare din aceasta toamna si nu va mai incerca sa manipuleze majoritatea parlamentara pentru a forta aducerea PDL la guvernare - practic, vorbim de incetarea rolului neconstitutional de "presedinte-jucator".<br />
Acestea sunt doar schite preliminare, scenariile detaliate si natura garantiilor politice si/sau publice pot fi determinate prin negocieri.<br />
<br />
Va fi clasa politica in stare sa produca, in sfarsit, si solutii, nu doar probleme? Sa treaca peste comoditatea cantonarii in propriile transee si caracterizarea celorlalti drept dusmani ai poporului, tradatori, pucisti? Sa remedieze ceea ce tot ea a stricat, ridicand presiunea politica de pe institutiile statului si lasand loc pentru concentrarea pe problemele acute ale tarii, economice si sociale?<br />
<br />
Daca raspunsul la intrebarile de mai sus va fi pozitiv, pentru Romania ar putea urma o refondare a civilizatiei democratice si o perioada mai calma.<br />
<br />
Daca, in schimb, politicienii vor pleca in vacanta si vor reveni in septembrie cu bateriile incarcate pentru o noua faza de escaladare a razboiului politic, nu se anunta nimic bun. Pana la urma, toti acesti politicieni vor plati politic intr-un fel sau altul pentru dezastrul pe care l-au creat, dar sunt sanse mari sa antreneze si tara intreaga in caderea lor.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-9446239621600869912012-07-29T17:52:00.001+02:002012-07-29T17:52:58.701+02:00Soarta Romaniei la ruleta politicienilor jucatori (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Cand scriu aceste randuri, nu este clar daca pragul de participare impus de Curtea Constitutionala pentru validarea referendumului de demitere a lui Traian Basescu din functia de presedinte al Romaniei va fi atins. Speranta mea este ca pragul sa fie depasit si referendumul sa fie validat - situatia contrara ar crea enorm de multe probleme si ar putea da lovitura de gratie unei democratii deja grav ranite.<br />
In acelasi timp, judecata rece imi spune ca rezultatul cel mai probabil, conform tendintei din ultimele ore, este o participare la vot sub 45% pana la inchiderea urnelor, atragand invalidarea referendumului si revenirea lui Basescu la Cotroceni.<br />
<br />
Dar, indiferent de ce se va intampla, ceea ce voi scrie mai jos isi pastreaza valabilitatea.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Tranzitia de putere din Romania anului 2012 nu avea nevoie catusi de putin de toate aceste tensiuni si emotii. Odata venita la guvernare, USL nu avea decat de gestionat fara mari riscuri perioada de pana la alegerile parlamentare, concentrandu-se pe redresarea economiei, corectarea unor abuzuri si nedreptati din perioada basista, inchiderea robinetelor jafului din banii publici si scoaterea la iveala a acestuia prin audituri independente la ministerele cheie, anularea unor masuri bugetare represive care nu-si aveau justificare. Romanii i-ar fi fost recunoscatori noului guvern, investitorii ar fi apreciat masurile pro-crestere si previzibilitatea politicilor economice, societatea civila ar fi intampinat pozitiv cresterea transparentei publice si o guvernare mai integra decat cele precedente.<br />
<br />
In timpul acesta, Traian Basescu ar fi devenit tot mai izolat si irelevant la Cotroceni, iar PDL, aflat in deruta dupa pierderea la scor a alegerilor locale, ar fi avut de facut fata dezvaluirilor incomode si si-ar fi continuat scaderea din sondaje. Poate chiar ar fi inceput sa se distanteze de Traian Basescu, intelegand ca numai asa poate supravietui ca forta politica pe termen mediu si lung.<br />
<br />
Dupa previzibila victorie de la parlamentarele din toamna, USL, cu o noua majoritate legitimata la urne, ar fi putut declansa un proces riguros pentru suspendarea presedintelui Basescu, in contul numeroaselor incalcari ale Constitutiei la care s-a dedat in mandatele sale. Motivele suspendarii ar fi putut fi formulate convingator, explicate pe larg si dezbatute public; nu ar mai fi fost nevoie de schimbarea cu forta a presedintilor camerelor parlamentare, din moment ce altii noi, reprezentand noua majoritate, ar fi fost alesi imediat dupa scrutinul parlamentar; si n-ar mai fi fost nevoie ca totul sa fie facut intr-o saptamana, spre socul observatorilor externi.<br />
<br />
Acesta ar fi fost un scenariu perfect fezabil al preluarii treptate si ordonate a puterii, fara riscuri importante si fara zguduiri ale institutiilor sau bruscarea ordinii democratice. Ar fi evitat multe dintre problemele serioase de astazi: discreditarea in fata partenerilor occidentali, victimizarea lui Basescu si re-mobilizarea suporterilor sai, eroziunea cadrului legal si institutional chiar dincolo de gradul deja avansat de degradare atins sub puterea portocalie, costurile economice si sociale ale instabilitatii politice.<br />
Foarte probabil, s-ar fi putut evita si impunerea unui prag de participare pentru validarea referendumului (care acum a trebuit acceptat sub presiune externa, pentru a linisti cat de cat temerile Occidentului fata de fortarea cadrului democratic de catre USL); sau daca nu, in orice caz eventuala boicotare a referendumului de catre basisti ar fi fost mult mai costisitoare politic, foarte probabil cu efect mult mai slab la electorat, si i-ar fi decredibilizat definitiv pe portocalii.<br />
<br />
Oricare ar fi rezultatul final al referendumului de astazi, este clar ca sefii USL au ratat sansa unei tranzitii pasnice si ordonate a puterii, desi aveau toate atuurile in mana. Adusi la putere pe valul nemultumirii populare fata de abuzurile basiste, ei nu aveau de facut decat sa-si pastreze cumpatul si sa organizeze metodic si fara fisura procesul de demantelare a puterii basiste, inclusiv ultimul pas - suspendarea si demiterea lui Traian Basescu din functia de presedinte.<br />
Dar, in loc de asta, au ales sa joace tranzitia democratica la ruleta radicalizarii si escaladei conflictului politic - exact in stilul consacrat de vandalul politic pe care si-au propus sa-l inlocuiasca. Iar ca miza au aruncat pe masa nu doar carierele lor politice, ci si sperantele de mai bine ale romanilor si reputatia tarii.<br />
<br />
Pentru ca au ales, asemenea lui Basescu, sa se joace cu soarta tarii, Ponta si Antonescu sunt acum <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.ro/2012/07/noii-vandali-ro.html">noii vandali</a> de care trebuie sa ne aparam democratia.<br />
<br />
Indiferent daca Basescu pleaca sau nu dupa referendumul de astazi, pentru binele Romaniei va trebui ca Ponta si Antonescu sa plece si ei.<br />
<br />
Nu pot incheia fara sa subliniez ca, in acest moment, dupa ce taberele politice au adus tensiunile din societate pana la paroxism, riscul major pentru Romania este izbucnirea violentelor de strada pe fond de conflict politic. Singura posibilitate de a preveni un astfel de dezastru este ca rezultatul votului popular de astazi - inclusiv validarea sau invalidarea referendumului - sa fie recunoscut de ambele tabere politice. Daca cea care pierde, oricare ar fi aceea, nu-si recunoaste infrangerea, Romania se va afla in mare pericol.</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-83101737191733745292012-07-17T23:48:00.000+02:002012-07-24T09:07:29.308+02:00Pozitia mea (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Printre protagonistii evenimentelor din ultima vreme din politica romaneasca, care au pus pe jar tara si Europa, este foarte greu de gasit vreun personaj pozitiv. <br />
Nici Basescu, nici Antonescu si Ponta, nici chiar institutiile "independente" care se plang de presiunile politice la care sunt supuse nu sunt usa de biserica.<br />
<br />
Dar pentru ca avem niste alegeri de facut, a-i pune pe toti in aceeasi oala nu este suficient si nu prea ne ajuta. Chiar daca fiecare are partea lui de vina, judecata si raspunsul trebuie sa fie individualizate.<br />
<br />
Ce au facut USL-istii in ultimele saptamani este o barbarie. Trec peste neagra prostie - la care <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/07/noii-vandali-ro.html#more">m-am mai referit</a> - de a le sufla din nou in panze basistilor, tocmai cand acestia trageau sa moara politic. Trec peste inconstienta de a-si pune in cap Europa si mai toti aliatii nostri occidentali, prin manevre politice de subtilitatea unui rinocer aterizat pe o scena de opera (si cu o strategie de comunicare de calitatea unui grohait derutat). Trec peste ofensa grobiana si total inutila la adresa multor oameni de buna credinta, care si-au vazut insultata (cel putin) inteligenta cu un discurs politic puternic reminiscent al fesenismului primitiv de la inceputul anilor 1990.<br />
Ramane faptul indiscutabil - si profund nelinistitor pentru mine - ca noua putere USL-ista s-a dovedit la fel de dispusa ca predecesorii ei basisti, ba chiar pe alocuri mai abitir, sa forteze limitele regulilor, cutumelor si practicii democratice in focul razboiului politic. Abia ce <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/05/schimbarea-de-putere-ro.html">ma bucuram</a> ca a fost tras pe linie moarta <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2009/12/intoarcerea-marelui-vandal-ro.html">marele vandal politic</a> al ultimului deceniu, ca i-au si aparut <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/07/noii-vandali-ro.html">continuatorii</a>, din cealalta parte a spectrului politic.<br />
Ca unul care scrie de aproape trei ani impotriva abuzurilor basiste, cred ca sunt indreptatit sa spun ca increderea mea in USL ca solutie pentru Romania este acum la cota zero.<br />
<br />
<br />
Pe de alta parte, ca sa-mi treaca prin cap ideea de a-l sustine pe Basescu in acest moment - sper, de final - al carierei lui politice, ar trebui sa mi se extirpe toata memoria recenta.<br />
<br />
Presedintele suspendat, care zice acum ca se lupta nu pentru a-si apara scaunul, ci pentru a salva statul de drept, care se proclama campion al constitutionalismului, erou al respectarii procedurilor, protector al justitiei si al institutiilor independente, este acelasi care a calcat in picioare cu brutalitate cam toate regulile si institutiile in ultimii ani, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/12/starea-democratiei-romanesti-ro.html">dand efectiv inapoi ceasul</a> constructiei democratice in Romania.<br />
<br />
El este cel care, in 2009, impotriva spiritului Constitutiei si batjocorind democratia, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2009/10/basescu-castiga-romania-pierde-ro.html">a impiedicat o majoritate parlamentara legitima</a> sa vina la guvernare si a impus un guvern nelegitim, pe care l-a tinut la putere pana in panzele albe. El este cel care a girat <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/02/fraudarea-alegerilor-ro.html">falsificarea configuratiei politice a Parlamentului</a>, rezultata din alegeri, pentru a-si pastra propriul partid la putere. El este cel care <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2009/12/siluirea-parlamentului-ro.html">a sters pe jos cu Parlamentul</a> si care si-a subordonat guvernul pana la niveluri grotesti care se mai vad, in partea noastra de lume, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/03/food-for-thought-ro.html">doar in unele state post-sovietice</a>. El este cel care a si-a contruit puterea personala <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/05/manchurian-candidate-ro.html">cu sprijinul serviciilor secrete</a>, care a atacat constant institutiile statului care nu-i erau subordonate (intre care <a href="http://www.realitatea.net/basescu-ataca-judecatorii-de-unde-credeti-ca-vom-scoate-9-miliarde-de-lei_883793.html">justitia</a>, si nu doar o data), care a transformat anti-coruptia in <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2011/01/despre-coruptie-si-alti-demoni-ro.html">arma politica</a> si instrument de putere, care a catalogat Curtea Constitutionala drept "<a href="http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/curtea-constitutionala-penibila-pavaza-de-nadejde-pentru-infractorii-parlamentari-recunoasteti-autorul-80851.html">o institutie penibila</a>" (inainte de <a href="http://www.ziare.com/articole/traian+basescu+decoreaza+judecatorii+ccr">a o decora</a>, recent). Guvernul sustinut de el a dat <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/03/opriti-reforma-statului-vreau-sa-cobor.html">ordonante anticonstitutionale in serie</a>, oamenii lui <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/06/romania-cucerita-ro.html">au trecut peste orice reguli</a> pentru a-si impune dominatia politica la CCR, ba au furat chiar si votul in Parlament (cel putin la Legea pensiilor, in 2010). Oameni ca <a href="http://anticoruptie.hotnews.ro/stiri-anticoruptie-12817194-sorin-blejnar-urmarit-penal-pentru-complicitate-evaziune-fiscala-sprijinire-unui-grup-infractional-organizat.htm">Blejnar</a>, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/11/pdl-ritualuri-feudale.html">Udrea</a>, Videanu si multi altii de genul asta au prosperat la varful puterii in timpul regimului basist. Basescu este cel care a adus Romania periculos de aproape de limita <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/06/despre-ce-vorbeste-basescu-cand.html">neguvernabilitatii</a> si a <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/05/transmit-un-avertisment-public.html">haosului social</a>. Regimul basist este cel care are pe constiinta vieti pierdute prin politici antisociale scelerate (pretinse <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2011/04/care-ideologie-ro.html">de dreapta</a>).<br />
<br />
Pentru aceste motive, si pentru multe altele consemnate in detaliu pe acest blog din octombrie 2009 incoace, <b>la referendumul din 29 iulie voi vota fara nici o ezitare pentru demiterea lui Traian Basescu din functia de presedinte al Romaniei. </b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Si voi vota astfel fara iluzii sau naivitate, fara ca prin votul impotriva lui Basescu sa acord increderea mea USL-ului. Sper ca tara sa scape de Basescu acum, iar o alternativa preferabila USL-ului sa apara cat mai curand.<br />
<br />
Democratia romaneasca si statul de drept au o soarta ingrata, fiind atacate de politic din toate partile. Singura cale este sa infruntam aceste amenintari pe rand si, mai ales, sa ramanem vigilenti.<br />
<br /></div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-59699337755183367962012-07-03T15:40:00.000+02:002012-07-03T16:11:31.934+02:00Noii vandali (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6Jnsd4wGyPrukOL1hYK1kj53doftCPcQjv5uuvIoN5g8W_ihzDdKEYg8WiLhMt_aYyNfZKY4Heus9EDoG4ap0sNRmDQ7GwQ_u20O4oLAwQSLHtke0mHMwUV1B8-JYe_b_GXT2gaBm-q0/s1600/0572220100506155710.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" sca="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6Jnsd4wGyPrukOL1hYK1kj53doftCPcQjv5uuvIoN5g8W_ihzDdKEYg8WiLhMt_aYyNfZKY4Heus9EDoG4ap0sNRmDQ7GwQ_u20O4oLAwQSLHtke0mHMwUV1B8-JYe_b_GXT2gaBm-q0/s320/0572220100506155710.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Ce se intampla in aceste zile la USL seamana cu lucrarea unui virus misterios al nebuniei colective.<br />
<br />
Incoltiti si hartuiti de Basescu (da, cu metode securistice - dar trebuia sa se astepte la asta si sa fie pregatiti!), Ponta si ai lui si-au pierdut cumpatul si au intrat in jocul adversarului. <br />
<br />
Reactioneaza isteric si distructiv, creand enorme pagube colaterale. Infuriati de Basescu si incapabili sa-i raspunda direct, isi varsa furia asupra unor institutii (<a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12684759-exclusiv-planul-actiune-usl-pentru-suspendarea-presedintelui-traian-basescu.htm">Curtea Constitutionala</a>, <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12685026-relu-fenechiu-pnl-orice-face-guvernul-este-declarat-neconstitutional-avocatul-poporului-sau-ccr-singura-solutie-pentru-intrarea-normalitate-este-aceste-institutii-fie-reorganizate.htm">Avocatul Poporului</a> - nemaivorbind de <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-media_publicitate-12623172-pdl-incearca-obtina-locuri-viitorul-tvr-trei-propuneri-radu-carp-ioan-stanomir-andrei-postelnicu.htm">TVR</a>, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/06/ce-cred-despre-ro.html#ICR">ICR</a>, <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-12681371-ultima-ora-revista-nature-comisie-din-romania-decide-premierul-ponta-este-plagiator-dar-comisia-este-dizolvata-timpul-sedintei.htm">CNATDCU</a>, sau de <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-12679402-usl-nu-renunta-votul-uninominal-pur-sunt-dispusi-amane-alegerile-parlamentare.htm">persistenta</a> in <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/05/o-magarie-noii-puteri-ro.html">magaria</a> schimbarii radicale a sistemului de vot chiar inainte de alegeri). USL seamana cu un boxer turbat care, lovind mai mult pe langa adversar, a invinetit ochii multor spectatori.<br />
<br />
Principala victima colaterala a acestei intunecari a mintii este democratia romaneasca. Deja siluita de basisti de trei ani incoace de abia-si mai tragea rasuflarea, ordinea democratica este din nou calcata violent in picioare, in razboiul politic. PDL crease deja precedente nefaste, care se pot sterge doar in decenii de practica democratica riguroasa; acum, USL escaladeaza nivelul abuzului politic si da lovitura de gratie oricarei iluzii de civilizatie democratica pe Dambovita.<br />
<br />
Se putea altfel?<br />
Desigur, cu putina inteligenta. <br />
<a name='more'></a>Se putea lucra pentru a desavarsi schimbarea de putere in interiorul cadrului democratic. Cu un minim de tactica si rabdare, se putea restaura spatiul public democratic (desfiintat in mare masura de basisti) si se putea profita de deruta PDL pentru a reseta sistemul politic. Basescu era in mare masura neutralizat (cum zic americanii, un <em>lame duck president</em>), pana cand Ponta sa se arunce orbeste si nepregatit intr-un conflict frontal, efectiv readucandu-l la viata pe marinar. Societatea civila era in mare masura favorabila noii puteri, pana cand a fost provocata stupid si speriata de abuzurile USL.<br />
<br />
Din pacate, inteligenta a pierdut, prostia agresiva a castigat. <br />
Sau poate noua putere nu face decat sa isi arate adevarata fata.<br />
<br />
Din acest colt de internet, cu modestele-mi puteri, m-am luptat doi ani si jumatate impotriva <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/search/label/vandalism">vandalismului</a> basist la adresa cadrului legal si institutional. <br />
Cu doua luni in urma, <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2012/05/schimbarea-de-putere-ro.html">am crezut</a> ca au venit vremuri mai bune pentru ordinea democratica. <br />
<br />
Acum, imi dau seama ca pericolul nu a trecut, doar adversarul principal s-a schimbat, pentru ca o alta gasca de urangutani politici a simtit gustul puterii.</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-2677974097734287972012-06-25T16:30:00.000+02:002012-06-25T16:30:13.867+02:00N-au inteles nimic... (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Se inmultesc semnele ca a noastra clasa politica n-a inteles nimic din istoria recenta - sau a inteles pe dos. <br />
<br />
Puterea basista s-a prabusit nu pentru ca a luat masuri nepopulare de reforma, cum continua sa se iluzioneze portocaliii, construindu-si o istorie eroica fara nici o legatura cu realitatea. Dar nici pentru ca romanii ar fi aderat la linia politica USL-ista (care o fi aceea?) si si-ar fi dorit sa schimbe un partid-stat cu altele doua, sau pentru ca cetatenii si-ar dori in primul rand revansa unei tabere politice asupra celeilalte, cum pare a crede noua putere.<br />
<br />
In realitate, oamenii s-au ingretosat de lacomia si aroganta basistilor si - mai ales - s-au speriat de lipsa de scrupule a acestora in a-si subordona politic statul si intregul spatiu public, calcand in picioare principiile democratiei si instaurand un sistem de putere care se dorea inexpugnabil. Reflexul electoratului a fost unul de aparare in fata pradatorilor basisti, si de salvare a ordinii democratice in ceasul al 12-lea.<br />
<br />
Din pacate, imi devine din ce in ce mai clar - cel mai recent exemplu, <a href="http://www.antena3.ro/life-show/media/pdl-nu-va-avea-nici-un-loc-in-noul-consiliu-de-administratie-al-tvr-psd-si-pnl-vor-avea-cate-trei-locuri-172869.html">aici</a>, dar vorbim de <a href="http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/reparatie-sau-restauratie-268086.html">o lista din ce in ce mai lunga</a> - ca USL nu face decat sa continue, in oglinda, abuzurile politice ale fostei guvernari, dovedind o graba mult mai mare in a-si impune clientela in posturi publice si in a prelua politic controlul institutiilor decat in a revigora spatiul democratic, asa cum promisese.<br />
<br />
Singura concluzie posibila este ca Romania nu se poate baza pe constiinta sau bunul simt al clasei sale politice, pe atasamentul ei cat de firav la regulile jocului democratic. Tendinta de a acapara puterea totala si de a abuza de ea cu orice ocazie pare a fi gravata in ADN-ul actualei clase politice. <br />
<br />
In calitate de cetatean, mi se pare cu totul insuficient sa aleg doar care dintre haitele flamande de lupi sa ajunga in fruntea bucatelor.<br />
<a name='more'></a> Este urgent necesar un reviriment democratic al celor care inca mai cred in democratie in Romania, dincolo de diversele preferinte politice, pentru a sanctiona cat mai dur abuzurile, indiferent de tabara de la care vin. Exista unele semne de mobilizare a societatii, dar pentru a putea face fata asaltului politic asupra ordinii democratice este nevoie de eforturi si vigilenta inzecite. <br />
<br />
Trebuie sa-i fortam pe politicieni - pe toti! - sa joace strict in interiorul cadrului democratic, al regulilor si institutiilor; nici macar apropierea de limite n-ar trebui sa le-o mai permitem, stiind de ce sunt capabili, ci sa-i obligam sa circule numai pe axul drumului pana cand dau dovezi convingatoare ca au internalizat valorile democratice. Alta solutie nu exista, deocamdata.<br />
Fiind mai ingaduitori cu "ai nostri" decat cu "ai lor", ne furam singuri caciula si ne lasam antrenati cu tot cu tara intr-un razboi in care nici nu mai conteaza cine vor fi invingatorii, pentru ca invinsii nu putem fi decat noi, toti ceilalti.<br />
</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-89485029846691962052012-06-20T23:23:00.000+02:002012-07-03T09:42:57.825+02:00Ce cred despre... (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<b>1. Condamnarea <a href="http://anticoruptie.hotnews.ro/stiri-anticoruptie-12570476-dosarul-trofeul-calitatii-inalta-curte-miercuri-verdictul-final-privind-condamnarea-lui-adrian-nastase-doi-ani-inchisoare-executare.htm">definitiva</a> a lui Adrian Nastase la inchisoare cu executare</b><br />
<br />
Ma bucura vestea si rezonez in mare masura cu ce a scris <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-12576544-ziua-care-generatia-mea-crede-din-nou-poate.htm">Vlad Mixich</a> pe aceasta tema, desi nu suntem tocmai colegi de generatie. Cred insa ca este doar un inceput: daca Nastase ramane singurul condamnat dintre politicienii de varf, nu avem un progres real.<br />
<br />
Despre pesedistii care il jelesc pe Nastase (vezi <a href="http://revistapresei.hotnews.ro/stiri-radio_tv-12576131-viorel-hrebenciuc-tvr-info-asistam-sacrificiu-ritualic-decizia-iccj-nu-afecta-psd.htm">aici</a>, <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12576085-ilie-sarbu-sunt-bulversat-total-este-verdict-extrem-dur.htm">aici</a>, <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12576031-ecaterina-andronescu-despre-sentinta-cazul-adrian-nastase-socant.htm">aici</a>), pot sa spun ca nu ma impresioneaza; mi s-ar parea decent ca, in perioada urmatoare, in calitate de politicieni ai puterii, sa se abtina de la comentarii ce ar putea fi interpretate ca imixtiuni in domeniul Justitiei. In ce ma priveste, am o amintire inca vie a vietii in Romania sub Nastase si - desi nu-mi sta in fire sa ma bucur de raul altuia - cred ca decizia de astazi a curtii este un inceput de dreptate. Sigur, dupa ce justitia din Romania s-a pronuntat definitiv, Nastase este liber sa-si apere cauza mai departe la instantele europene.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><a name="ICR">2. Cazul ICR / Patapievici si prostia politicienilor </a></b><br />
<br />
Cum <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.be/2012/06/patapievici-ro.html">am mai scris</a>, d-l Patapievici a facut politica basista, nesocotind datoria de impartialitate si de rezerva politica a unui slujbas al statului. De altfel, Patapievici continua sa faca politica si acum, prin felul in care conduce polemica cu guvernul. Ca sa fie mai clar ce vreau sa spun, comparati cu atitudinea - intr-o situatie oarecum asemanatoare, desi mult mai serioasa - lui <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-11589349-raed-arafat-nu-sunt-interesat-intru-politica-nu-voi-candida-primaria-capitalei.htm">Raed Arafat</a> cand a fost atacat de presedintele Basescu: a refuzat sa se angajeze in controverse politice, a demisionat, a refuzat instrumentalizarea politica a gestului sau de rezistenta, nu a incercat sa-si construiasca o platforma politica speculand simpatia populara. Prin contrast, Patapievici si-a inceput apararea cu <a href="http://www.mediafax.ro/cultura-media/patapievici-aprecierile-lui-ponta-despre-icr-sunt-minciuni-calificate-9748308">un atac la primul ministru</a>.<br />
<br />
Pe de alta parte, felul in care puterea USL a gestionat situatia a fost <b>sinistru.</b> Pe langa aspectul grav al emiterii unei ordonante de urgenta cu privire la ICR, ocolind procedura democratica normala, am fost stupefiat de unele declaratii din zona puterii. Nu stiu cat simt al umorului are Victor Ponta, dar <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-cultura-12555284-victor-ponta-protesteaza-domnul-patapievici-nu-inteleg-nu-vreau-schimb.htm">glumita lui</a> de la Viena ("de ce e nelinistit Patapievici, ca nu vreau sa-l schimb?") imi aminteste, extrem de nelinistitor, de agresivitatea aroganta a lui Adrian Nastase, pe vremea cand avea Romania la picioare. Iar <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-cultura-12554314-afp-zeci-artisti-romani-cer-simbolic-azil-cultural-canada-mihai-voicu-pnl-icr-institutie-propaganda-personala-aproape-toti-cei-trei-protestatari-platiti-sute-milioane-lei-dea-periuta.htm">declaratia purtatorului de cuvant PNL-ist</a> despre cei care protesteaza impotriva ordonantei mi-a adus aminte foarte neplacut de Ion Iliescu in 1990, pentru care cei din Piata Universitatii erau platiti de forte obscure ale opozitiei. Este de-a dreptul penibil - ca purtator de cuvant al puterii in Romania anului 2012 - sa raspunzi in acest fel, cu atac la persoana preopinentilor, in loc sa te limitezi la argumente; in plus, nu toti cei care protesteaza pot fi catalogati cu usurinta drept basisti: de pilda, <a href="http://www.tolo.ro/2012/06/18/azi-am-papion/">Tolontan</a> sau <a href="http://romaniacurata.ro/societatea-civila-cere-avocatului-poporului-sa-opreasca-ordonanta-de-u-2927.htm">Romania Curata</a> au luat pozitii clare in trecutul recent si impotriva abuzurilor politice ale portocaliilor.<br />
<br />
Cred ca, din prostie si aroganta, puterea actuala si-a creat singura o problema care ar putea deveni semnificativa. Mai cred ca o eventuala victorie a protestatarilor - de exemplu prin retragerea ordonantei de urgenta si initierea unei dezbateri publice asupra rolului ICR - ar fi un lucru bun pentru democratia romaneasca si o lectie utila pentru putere ca nu orice este permis si ca respectarea procedurilor este cel putin la fel de importanta ca rezultatul urmarit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>3. Scandalul plagiatului lui Ponta</b><br />
<br />
Parerea mea merge in sensul celei exprimate de <a href="http://moshemordechai.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/care-solidaritate/">Moshe & Mordechai</a>. Daca Ponta este suspect ca ar fi trisat cu lucrarea de doctorat, este normal sa i se ceara explicatii. Daca este vinovat, cred ca ar fi de bun simt sa se retraga de la sefia guvernului - e vorba aici de prestigiul si imaginea tarii pe care o reprezinta ca premier.<br />
Ipoteza ca majoritatea doctoratelor din Romania ar fi bazate pe fals merita o investigatie serioasa in perioada urmatoare. In orice caz, asta nu-l scuza pe Ponta.<br />
Pe de alta parte, daca - asa cum se afirma destul de credibil din multe surse - Basescu si serviciile secrete se afla la originea scandalului, cred ca ar fi un argument serios pentru accelerarea suspendarii presedintelui. Cum <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.be/2012/05/schimbarea-de-putere-ro.html">am mai scris</a> pe blog, cred ca suspendarea lui Basescu din functie este un gest necesar de igiena democratica si exista deja suficiente motive pentru un astfel de demers; daca, in plus, Basescu se dovedeste a fi in continuare un factor de subminare a ordinii democratice prin folosirea institutiilor statului in interes politic, suspendarea devine o urgenta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4. <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12564160-instanta-suprema-mircea-diaconu-este-incompatibil-victor-ponta-mod-sigur-diaconu-ceda-functia-ministru-culturii.htm">Demisia ministrului Culturii</a></b>, Mircea Diaconu, dupa decizia nefavorabila lui de la ICCJ<br />
<br />
Am simpatie si respect pentru Mircea Diaconu, dar este esential ce spune <a href="http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/reparatie-sau-restauratie-268086.html">Alina Mungiu-Pippidi</a>: "suntem in Europa, legea se aplica". As adauga ca legea se aplica inclusiv - sau mai ales - cand nu ne convine. Consider ca Diaconu a luat decizia corecta atat in privinta demisiei, cat si in privinta ramanerii in politica alaturi de PNL. Poate ar trebui sa se intrebe cum a ajuns in aceasta situatie umilitoare si daca n-ar fi putut sa o evite.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
***<br />
Imi devine din ce in ce mai clar ca vom asista, in perioada urmatoare, la o lupta politica extrem de murdara in Romania. Ma tem ca nici una dintre tabere nu va avea scrupule, se va lupta cu orice mijloace, pe viata si pe moarte. In acest context, cred ca - mai mult ca niciodata - singurul refugiu al cetateanului normal este de a judeca situatia strict pe baza de principii si criterii obiective - cum ar fi respectul fata de legi si institutii, acelea pe care le (mai) avem. Partizanatul politic, indiferent de tabara careia i se aliniaza, devine o optiune extrem de riscanta din punct de vedere etic.<br />
<br />
Daca cei interesati de soarta democratiei si a statului de drept mai mult decat de miza acapararii puterii de catre o tabara politica sau alta nu constituie o masa critica, daca ne lasam antrenati, ca societate, in acest razboi politic, ne vom putea sfasia intre noi pana cand nu mai ramane nimic in picioare in aceasta tara.<br />
<br />
</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-21936467329657182072012-06-14T23:13:00.000+02:002012-06-15T06:08:30.534+02:00Patapievici (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">L-am admirat pe Horia-Roman Patapievici. Cartile lui, luarile de pozitie politice, prestatia culturala mi-au influentat tineretea. Imi amintesc foarte bine prezenta lui la Seratele muzicale ale lui Iosif Sava de la inceputul anilor 1990, sau cum, in revista "22", a facut o radiografie exacta si neiertatoare a naturii regimului Iliescu - un adevarat manifest al societatii civile si al opozitiei de atunci.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-12523365-icr-guvernul-usl-vrea-modifice-legea-deoarece-stie-nu-poate-dispune-politic-institut.htm">Momentul de astazi</a> este trist.<br />
Dar nu mai trist, din pacate, decat unele episoade din trecutul recent, cum ar fi <a href="http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/patapievici-basescu-a-avut-o-caseta-cu-geoana-primind-sex-oral-5170011">acesta</a> (interviul original, in spaniola, <a href="http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20091206/53837930139/patapievici-tenemos-oligarcas-y-ejercen-un-papel-desagradable.html">aici</a>).<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Nu cred ca e vreun motiv de <a href="http://lilick-auftakt.blogspot.com/2012/06/pa-patapievici.html">bucurie</a> cand un intelectual de valoarea lui Patapievici este fortat sa se incline in fata politicului. Si sunt consternat sa aflu ca ajunsese sa fie <a href="http://www.contributors.ro/reactie-rapida/pentru-ce-merita-scuipat-%C8%99i-mazilit-patapievici-guvernului-ponta-nu-face%C8%9Bi-voi-un-du%C8%99-rece/">scuipat pe strada</a>.<br />
<br />
Dar nu pot sa nu constat ca Patapievici, din nefericire, ilustreaza sinstrul raport al unei parti a intelectualitatii romanesti cu politica, un raport pervers si distructiv despre care <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/search/label/intelectuali">am mai scris</a>, in care un efemer acces la masa stapanilor se face cu pretul enorm, incalculabil, al abandonului atributelor definitorii ale intelectualului autentic - independenta si spiritul critic.<br />
Mai pe scurt: cand te amesteci cu tarata, te mananca porcii.<br />
<br />
PS:<br />
Nu am multe de comentat despre ultimele evolutii politice. Cred ca ce se intampla acum la PDL este o concluzie logica - desi spectaculos precipitata - a istoriei ultimilor patru ani.<br />
Pe de alta parte, in cazul USL creste din ce in ce mai mult distanta intre increderea (limitata) pe care noua putere o merita pe baza propriilor calitati demonstrate, si creditul (enorm) care ii este acordat de un popor traumatizat de experienta basista. In acest interval, care se casca larg, pandesc multe pericole.</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3360270365685229407.post-34296093219093116912012-05-08T17:55:00.000+02:002012-05-08T21:34:50.705+02:00O magarie a noii puteri (RO)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>UPDATE:</b> Salut reactia prompta si <a href="http://lilick-auftakt.blogspot.com/2012/05/raspunsuri-pentru-rational-idealist-si.html">exemplara a lui Lilick</a>. Sper sa ne strangem mai multi.<br />
------------<br />
M-am abtinut sa-mi dau cu parerea in scandalurile legate de unele nominalizari de ministri din noul guvern - pentru ca nu aveam informatii complete si, oricum, erau destui ochi pe Ponta. Mi-am zis ca e cazul sa astept primele masuri concrete ale noii puteri.<br />
<br />
Dar votarea in Senat a asa-zisului "uninominal pur" pentru alegerile parlamentare si <a href="http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12197097-senatul-dezbate-luni-proiectul-lege-privind-votul-uninominal-initiat-victor-ponta-crin-antonescu.htm">luarea de pozitie explicita a lui Ponta</a> in favoarea acestei batjocuri antidemocratice ma revolta. Argumentele pe care le foloseste sunt nu doar false, ci de-a dreptul perfide.<br />
<br />
Pentru cine nu stie, societatea civila si blogosfera se lupta de multa vreme pentru corectitudinea alegerilor si impotriva schimbarii abuzive, inainte de scrutin, a sistemului electoral, cu scopul avantajarii taberei aflate la putere (vedeti, de exemplu, <a href="http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/nu-va-atingeti-de-alegeri-236896.html">aici</a>, <a href="http://premise.wordpress.com/">aici</a> sau <a href="http://transildania.wordpress.com/sistemul-electoral-proportional/">aici</a>). Indiferent ce partid sau candidat sustineti, sistemul votat in Senat va ia din mana poate singura parghie democratica pe care o aveti de a influenta puterea - votul odata la patru ani. Ca tara cu democratie <a href="http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2010/12/starea-democratiei-romanesti-ro.html">periculos subrezita</a>, ne furam singuri caciula acceptand asa ceva. Cu sistemul votat in Senat, este foarte posibil ca o tabara politica, aflata pe val la un moment dat, sa obtina o majoritate zdrobitoare in parlament (de exemplu, 90% dintre mandate cu 45-55% din voturi, cum are USL acum); opozitia poate fi maturata, iar infiintarea de noi partide care sa poata intra in parlament ar deveni practic imposibila.<br />
<br />
Faptul ca basistii au fost primii care au imaginat aceasta aberatie, pe vremea cand li se parea ca este o metoda de a se mentine la putere, si ca acum sunt batuti cu propriile arme (cu un astfel de sistem si cu scorul actual din sondaje, PDL risca serios sa nu mai intre in parlament) nu este catusi de putin o scuza, dimpotriva. Mai devreme decat ma asteptam, se intampla lucrul de care ma temeam: <br />
<a name='more'></a>noua putere se foloseste de precedentul creat de abuzurile portocaliilor pentru a-si face, la randul ei, de cap.<br />
<br />
Sper intr-o mobilizare puternica si imediata a societatii civile si a blogosferei - mai ales a celei liberale, care are antecedente onorante - impotriva acestui abuz politic de pozitie dominanta al noii puteri. Inca mai este timp, dar nu mult. Iar USL trebuie facuta urgent sa inteleaga ca nu a venit la putere pentru a pune stapanire pe tara, ci pentru a restaura democratia. Daca nu-si stabileste singura limite clare pentru a preveni abuzul politic, trebuie sanctionata dur de cate ori sare peste cal.<br />
Daca nu facem asta, viitorul democratiei romanesti este foarte sumbru.</div>Rational Idealisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08350279117536462661noreply@blogger.com25